Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 2/26/26.
Currently, claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2, 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10702780, U.S. Patent No. 11331582 and U.S. Patent No. 11779848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 11 of the present application are merely broader in scope than that of U.S. Patent No. 10702780, U.S. Patent No. 11331582 and U.S. Patent No. 11779848. Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 10702780, U.S. Patent No. 11331582 and U.S. Patent No. 11779848 “invention” meets the limitations of the instant application. See below for a comparison example.
Instant Application
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 10702780
Claims 1, 8, 9
U.S. Patent No. 11331582
Claims 1, 8, 9
U.S. Patent No. 11779848
Claims 1, 8, 9
An online game system configured to host an online game that is presented to individual client devices, the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: store, in electronic storage, award handlers as blocks of executable code, wherein individual ones of the award handlers correspond to individual types of in-game awards, the individual ones of the award handlers being configured to distribute instances of in-game awards to the players, wherein the award handlers include a first award handler and a second award handler, wherein the first award handler is configured to distribute a first award, wherein the second award handler is different from the first award handler, and wherein the second award handler is configured to distribute a second award; store, in the electronic storage, a first event handler, wherein the first event handler includes machine-readable instructions to implement a first event in the online game, wherein the first event handler includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, wherein the first player requirement includes one or both of a player ranking requirement and/or a user level requirement; and implement, by the one or more physical processors, the first event handler, wherein implementing the first event handler in the online game includes: invoking, by the one or more physical processors, the first award handler to distribute the first award in accordance with a result of the first event.
An online game system that defines and controls an online game, the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: host the online game, and transmit information to individual client devices for implementation and presentation of the online game on the individual client devices; manage award information that defines types of in-game awards to be distributed to players within the online game, the award information including first award information that defines a first award type and second award information that defines a second award type; store, in electronic storage, award handlers as blocks of executable code, wherein individual ones of the award handlers correspond to the individual types of in-game awards defined by the award information, the individual ones of the award handlers being configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of corresponding types to player inventories within the online game, wherein the award handlers include a first award handler and a second award handler, wherein the first award handler is configured to distribute instances of in- game awards of the first award type to the player inventories within the online games wherein the second award handler is different from the first award handler, and wherein the second award handler is configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of the second award type; manage event information for implementing events in the online game such that first event information includes a first event handler, wherein the first event handler includes machine-readable instructions to implement the first event in the online game, wherein the first event information indicates the first award handler; and implement the first event handler, wherein implementing the first event handler in the online game includes: invoking the first award handler to distribute the one or more instances of in-game awards of the first award type as first event awards in accordance with a result of the first event; wherein the first event information includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, and wherein implementing the first event in the online game includes facilitating player participation in the first event in accordance with the first player requirement; wherein the first player requirement includes a country/region requirement, a user level/skill requirement, a user age requirement, or a virtual currency requirement.
An online game system configured to host an online game, the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: transmit information to individual client devices for presentation of the online game on the individual client devices; manage award information that defines types of in-game awards to be distributed to players within the online game, wherein the award information includes first award information that defines a first award type and second award information that defines a second award type; store, in electronic storage, award handlers as blocks of executable code, wherein individual ones of the award handlers correspond to the individual types of in- game awards defined by the award information, the individual ones of the award handlers being configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of corresponding types to the players, wherein the award handlers include a first award handler and a second award handler, wherein the first award handler is configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of the first award type, wherein the second award handler is different from the first award handler, and wherein the second award handler is configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of the second award type; manage event information for implementing events in the online game such that first event information includes a first event handler, wherein the first event handler includes machine-readable instructions to implement the first event in the online game, wherein the first event information indicates the first award handler; and implement the first event handler, wherein implementing the first event handler in the online game includes: invoking the first award handler to distribute the one or more instances of in-game awards of the first award type as first event awards in accordance with a result of the first event; wherein the first event information includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, and wherein implementing the first event in the online game includes facilitating player participation in the first event in accordance with the first player requirement; wherein the first player requirement includes a country/region requirement, a user level/skill requirement, a user age requirement, or a virtual currency requirement.
An online game system configured to host an online game that is presented to individual client devices, the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: store, in electronic storage, award handlers as blocks of executable code, wherein individual ones of the award handlers correspond to individual types of in-game awards, the individual ones of the award handlers being configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of corresponding types to the players, wherein the award handlers include a first award handler and a second award handler, wherein the first award handler is configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of a first award type, wherein the second award handler is different from the first award handler, and wherein the second award handler is configured to distribute instances of in-game awards of a second award type; store, in the electronic storage, a first event handler, wherein the first event handler includes machine-readable instructions to implement a first event in the online game, wherein the first event handler includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, wherein the first player requirement includes a user age requirement; and implement, by the one or more physical processors, the first event handler, wherein implementing the first event handler in the online game includes: invoking, by the one or more physical processors, the first award handler to distribute the one or more instances of in-game awards of the first award type as first event awards in accordance with a result of the first event; wherein implementing the first event in the online game includes facilitating player participation in the first event in accordance with the first player requirement; wherein the first player requirement includes at least one or a region requirement, a user skill requirement, and/or a virtual currency requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 2, 11,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “store award, wherein individual ones of the award correspond to individual types of in-game awards, the individual ones of the award being configured to distribute instances of in-game awards to the players, wherein the award include a first award and a second award, wherein the first award is configured to distribute a first award, wherein the second award is different from the first award, and wherein the second award is configured to distribute a second award; store a first event, wherein the first event implement a first event in the game, wherein the first event includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, wherein the first player requirement includes one or both of a player ranking requirement and/or a user level requirement; and implement the first event, wherein implementing the first event in the game includes: invoking the first award handler to distribute the first award in accordance with a result of the first event”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior, rules). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3-10, 12-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “An online game system configured to host an online game that is presented to individual client devices, the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions comprising electronic storage, handlers as blocks of executable code, handler includes machine-readable instructions”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activities. For instance, Bramble (2013/0172076), Georgi (2014/0039990), and Langan (2010/0056268) teaches the recited additional elements of a computer system comprising handlers (Bramble, Fig 8, ¶¶0079-0080, 0083-0084; Georgi, ¶¶0026, 0055-0056, 0062; Langan, ¶¶0045-0046, 0050-0051).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-19, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, rules in In re Smith.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-19 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanbragt et al. (2012/0015740) in view of Bramble (2013/0172076), Nathan et al. (2010/0162207), and Guinn (2012/0123570).
Re Claim 1,
Vanbragt discloses an online game system configured to host an online game that is presented to individual client devices, the system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (Fig 5-6, ¶¶0002, 0050-0052, 0054) to:
store, in electronic storage, award, wherein individual ones of the award correspond to individual types of in-game awards, the individual ones of the award being configured to distribute instances of in-game awards to the players, wherein the award include a first award and a second award, wherein the first award is configured to distribute a first award, wherein the second award is different from the first award, and wherein the second award is configured to distribute a second award (Fig 1-2, 5-7, ¶¶0018-0031, 0059-0061; the online multiplayer game provides a mechanism for player characters to acquire different types of in-game rewards, for example, one or more first-level rewards could include a healing portion, an invisibility cloak, or a castle key, wherein each award is different from each other);
store, in the electronic storage, a first event, wherein the first event includes machine-readable instructions to implement a first event in the online game, implement, by the one or more physical processors, the first event, wherein implementing the first event in the online game includes: invoking, by the one or more physical processors, the first award to distribute the first award in accordance with a result of the first event (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0018-0031; during normal game play, player A can be awarded gold coins for performing, executing, or attempting certain in-game events. The award of gold coins is analogous to scoring points or to being paid to perform tasks in a certain type of currency or other type of asset).
Vanbragt does not explicitly disclose an award handler comprising one or more blocks of script code and an event handler including one or more blocks of script code executed for implementing the first event in the online game, and the first event includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, wherein the first player requirement includes one or both of a player ranking requirement and/or a user level requirement.
However, Bramble teaches an award handler comprising one or more blocks of script code (Fig 8, ¶¶0079-0080, 0083-0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the award handler into the gaming system of Vanbragt in order to increase the computing efficiency of the game play.
Nathan teaches an event handler including one or more blocks of script code executed for implementing the first event in the online game (Fig 1a, ¶¶0014, 0019-0020; a choice of possible event-handler implementations or "behaviors" is presented to the user. After selecting one, the user then specifies what event triggers the selected behavior, i.e. a configurable event handler separates from other events handlers). Nathan further teaches such a configuration is easier to write in languages that provide high-level abstractions to support events and event handling (¶0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Nathan into the game implementation of Vanbragt in order to provide high-level abstractions to support events and event handling.
Guinn teaches the first event includes information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, wherein the first player requirement includes one or both of a player ranking requirement and/or a user level requirement (¶0063). Guinn further teaches such a configuration increases profitability to the game operator by attracting frequent play (¶0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Guinn into the online game of Vanbragt in order to increase profitability to the game operator by attracting frequent play.
Re Claims 2, 11,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Re Claims 3, 12
Vanbragt discloses all limitations as set forth above including the first event includes one or more award requirements such that the first event awards are distributed to player inventories of the players in accordance with the one or more award requirements (Fig 1-2, ¶¶0018-0028) but does not explicitly disclose a handler. However, Nathan teaches a handler (Fig 1a, ¶¶0014, 0019-0020). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 9, 18,
Vanbragt does not explicitly disclose information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, and wherein implementing the first event in the online game in accordance with the first event information includes facilitate player participation in the first event in accordance with the first player requirement. However, Guinn teaches information indicating the first event is available for participation only by players that meet a first player requirement, and wherein implementing the first event in the online game in accordance with the first event information includes facilitate player participation in the first event in accordance with the first player requirement (¶0063). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claims 10, 19,
Vanbragt does not explicitly disclose the first player requirement includes a country/region requirement, a user level/skill requirement, a user age requirement, or a virtual currency requirement. However, Guinn teaches the first player requirement includes a country/region requirement, a user level/skill requirement, a user age requirement, or a virtual currency requirement (¶0063). See claim 1 for motivation.
Claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanbragt et al. (2012/0015740) in view of Bramble (2013/0172076), Nathan et al. (2010/0162207) and Guinn (2012/0123570), further in view of D’Amico et al. (2011/0086701).
Re Claims 4, 13,
Vanbragt as modified by Bramble, Nathan, and Guinn discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the award requirements include a player ranking requirement. However, D’Amico teaches the award requirements include a player ranking requirement indicating the first event awards are distributed only to players that have breached a certain event rank at the end of the event period of the first event, and/or a user level requirement indicating the first event awards are distributed only players that have breached a certain user level in the online game at the end of the event period of the first event (¶¶0046-0047, 0050-0053). D’Amico further teaches such a configuration offers players the ability to obtain bonuses upon reaching defined levels or ranks of play (¶0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of D’Amico into the online game of Vanbragt as modified by Bramble, Nathan, and Guinn in order to offer players the ability to obtain bonuses upon reaching defined levels or ranks of play.
Re Claims 5, 14,
Vanbragt discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose including first event period information indicating a start time and/or an end time of the first event within the online game. However, D’Amico teaches including first event period information indicating a start time and/or an end time of the first event within the online game (¶¶0056-0062). D’Amico further teaches such a configuration provides a bonusing promotion which increases game play (¶0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of D’Amico into the online game of Vanbragt as modified by Bramble, Nathan, and Guinn in order to provide a bonusing promotion which increases game play.
Re Claims 6, 15,
Vanbragt discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose starting implementing the first event within the online game at the start time and/or stopping the first event within the online game at the end time. However, D’Amico teaches starting implementing the first event within the online game at the start time and/or stopping the first event within the online game at the end time (¶¶0056-0062). See claim 4 for motivation.
Re Claims 8, 17,
Vanbragt discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose determining first event rankings for the participating players of the first event at the end of the event period of the first event. However, D’Amico teaches determining first event rankings for the participating players of the first event at the end of the event period of the first event (¶¶0046-0047, 0050-0053). See claim 3 for motivation.
Claims 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanbragt et al. (2012/0015740) in view of Bramble (2013/0172076), Nathan et al. (2010/0162207) and Guinn (2012/0123570), further in view of Alderucci et al. (2015/0005055).
Re Claims 7, 16,
Vanbragtas modified by Bramble, Nathan and Guinn discloses all limitations as set forth above including the first event starts at the start time and/or ends at the end time but does not explicitly disclose transmitting to players one or more messages announcing game schedule. However, Alderucci teaches transmitting to players one or more messages announcing game schedule (¶¶0093-0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Alderucci into the online game of Vanbragt as modified by Bramble, Nathan and Guinn in order to provide a reminder to the players to participate in the game.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection,
Applicant argues that the Prong 1 analysis is flawed because the claims require the computer elements to perform the claimed invention. For example, the claim requires electronic storage and various handlers to perform the tasks. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the claimed invention describes a process of storing awards and distributing awards based on different events. This is a rule set governing how awards are determined and distributed. The Federal Circuit has treated rules for games as abstract. See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (card game rules abstract); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The recited elements, e.g., handlers as blocks of executable code, are all generic computer elements. Instructing one to “apply” an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent eligible. Further, narrowing the idea to an online gaming environment is an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Re 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection,
Applicant argues that Vandbragt fails to teach storing award handlers as blocks of executable code and storing anything in electronic storage. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vandbragt teaches various game rewards for an online multiplayer game, wherein the multiplayer game is supported by a multiplayer game server that receives and transmits game data with the client device, in addition, the multiuser game serve can have a data storage medium (¶¶0018-0031, 0059-0061). Vandbragt is silent on an award handler. However, as discussed above, Bramble teaches an award handler comprising one or more blocks of script code and is used to modify the Vandbragt reference.
Applicant further argues that Vandbragt fails to teach storing a first event handler. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to previous argument, Vandbragt teaches a multiuser game server with a game storage medium is used to store game related data but is silent on a first event handler. However, Nathan teaches an event handler including one or more blocks of script code executed for implementing the first event in the online game and is used to modify the Vandbragt reference. Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights