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 .
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.
Claim 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The pending claims are directed to “Certain methods of organizing human activity” in the forms of 1) providing betting activities subject to betting odds and 2) analyzing existing data and filtering it, both of which are activities identified by the courts as abstract ideas.
Providing opportunities for sports betting is an abstract idea that falls under the covered grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because wagering subject to odds has been held to be a fundamental economic practice in In re: Smith, No. 15-1664 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In re: Smith, the Federal Circuit held that, “rules for conducting a wagering game, compare to other “fundamental economic practice[s]” found abstract by the Supreme Court” because “[a] wagering game is, effectively, a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities” J.A. 15.” The Federal Circuit supported this conclusion by referencing Alice, wherein “the Supreme Court held that a method of exchanging financial obligations was drawn to an abstract idea.” 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57.
The Federal Circuit additionally cited Bilski, wherein “the Court determined that a claim to a method of hedging risk was directed to an abstract idea.” 561 U.S. at 611. The Federal Circuit reasoned that “Here, Applicants’ claimed “method of conducting a wagering game” is drawn to an abstract idea much like Alice’s method of exchanging financial obligations and Bilski’s method of hedging risk. Moreover, our own cases have denied patentability of similar concepts as being directed towards ineligible subject matter. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding offer-based price optimization abstract), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 701(2015); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that methods of managing a game of bingo were abstract ideas).
The same conclusion is reached examining pending claims 1-26 that enabling sports betting subject to odds is drawn to an abstract idea.
The pending claimed steps of detecting an event that triggers a search for content and selecting articles related to betting opportunities also represent activities held to be abstract ideas because this is essentially filtering content. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A).
Regarding these activities still being abstract when applied using computers, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) explains that “the sub-groupings [of organized human activity] encompass … activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) … and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” The pending claims to sports betting and filtering relevant articles related to the sports betting, practiced through activities between at least one user and a computer, is a covered method organizing human activity.
Recent further guidance on how to determine whether patent claims in the field of computerized gambling are directed to abstract ideas under the Alice test is provided in the precedential opinion in Beteiro v. DraftKings, No. 2022-2275 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024). In this decision to affirm the district court's ruling that the asserted claims are patent ineligible, the Federal circuit references four "well-settled indicators of abstractness":
1. The claims recite generic steps, such as "detecting information," "generating and transmitting a notification based on the information," "receiving a message," "determining ... and processing information," which are of a kind frequently held to be abstract.
2. The claims are drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results.
3. The claims are analogous to those deemed abstract in Federal Circuit precedents.
4. The claims can be persuasively analogized to longstanding "real-world" ("brick and mortar") activities.
The pending claims include all of these indicators. They recite generic steps for “accessing…”, “detecting a content trigger event…”, “aggregating data,”, “selecting one or more dynamic article…”, “publishing…”. The claims are drafted entirely using result-focused functional language. There are no specifics of how any particular hardware and/or software or programming steps achieve the listed outcomes. The claims are analogous to in re Smith to the extend providing gambling subject to odds is claimed, analogous to the creating and maintaining electronic records for applying a commonplace business practice by a computer in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, and analogous to BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A). And providing sports betting, analyzing and retrieving data and providing it to human consumers are human activities of immeasurable antiquity.
The specific language directed to abstract ideas in independent claims 1, 25 and 26 is as follows:
provide one or more betting odds opportunities for an online user, wherein the one or more betting odds opportunities include sporting events;
As discussed prior, wagering subject to odds has been held to be a fundamental economic practice in In re: Smith, No. 15-1664 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
detecting a content trigger event [that] corresponds to … betting odds opportunities; aggregating data [that] enables generating a human-readable online article; selecting one or more dynamic article features related to the at least one of the one or more betting odds opportunities;
These activities can be summarized as searching for information from a database relevant to a sports wagering option and restricting data to a particular type or content. In Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349, 119 USPQ2d 1236, it was determined that interacting with a database and selecting certain data by generic computers is not fundamentally different from human beings interacting with printed content. “[f]iltering software, apparently composed of filtering schemes and filtering elements, was well-known in the prior art” and “using ISP servers to filter content was well-known to practitioners.” As such this limitation is found to be an abstract idea under the grouping “Certain methods of organizing human activity”.
The additional elements recited in independent claims 1, 25 and 26 are:
digital betting platforms;
As there is no description of any particular hardware or software that makes up a “digital betting platform”, this is seen as a generic technological environment in which to apply the abstract ideas of the claim. Support for this conclusion can be found in the examples listed in MPEP 2106.05(h) including, in example viii., a communication medium limiting the use of an exception and ix., limiting the use of an abstract idea to the internet.
aggregating data;
This represents insignificant extra-solution activity of the type of “mere data gathering” – see MPEP 2106.05(g) for a discussion of examples of activities the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity including, in example v., “Consulting and updating an activity log”.
publishing the online article…
Publishing information already filtered from a database is insignificant post-solution activity. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance.”
Transmitting data by a generic computer is also akin to “The receiving of input and storing steps represent the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Affinity Labs v. DirectTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016 attributing particular generic computer functions for computer hardware to perform from well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by such hardware has been held to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The dependent claims are summarized as follows:
Claims 2-4 recite insignificant post-solution activity (cross-validating and confirming a sporting event). Claims 6-7 recite intended uses of the method “…facilitates batch publishing, …enables search engine optimization”. Publishing and optimizing existing information are insignificant post-solution activities.
Claim 5 recites the use of a generic random number generator. Adding a generic computing component such as a random number generator onto the invention without claiming any significance of its addition is seen as insignificant post-solution activity.
Claims 13-15 recite desired end results of categorizing and refreshing articles without claiming any significance to these tasks or any particular programming steps required to enact them. As such categorizing and refreshing existing articles is seen as additional instances of insignificant post-solution activity.
Claims 16-17 recite using some unspecified type of machine learning model. Again, appending some generic computing concept without claiming any significance to its addition or any nonobvious hardware and/or software integrated into the invention and required for its practice identifies such an addition as insignificant extra-solution activity.
With regard to claims 2-7 and 13-17, as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance.”
Claims 8-11 recite templates, claim 12 recites game and league variables, claim 18 recites images related to a sporting event, claim 19 recites widgets, claim 20 recites the contents of article features, and claims 21-23 recite additional types and/or contents of data. Effectively, claims 8-12 and 18-23 attempt to limit the application of an abstract idea to a particular type of data; this type of activity has been held to be insignificant extra solution activity. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).
Additionally, the recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently found, in the suits against Fox Corp. Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC and Fox Sports Productions, LLC, that when claims merely use machine learning to claim an abstract idea itself by “using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment,” this is a failure to transform the claimed abstract idea into “significantly more” – there is “no inventive concept.” The CAFC opinion concluded with a note that, “[m]achine learning is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvements in technology.” The court explained that its instant opinion held “only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
Claim 24 recites an intended field of use of sportsbooks without claiming any significance to this field of use or any particulars as to how sportsbooks are provided or integrated into the invention and as such serves as an additional example of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 1-26 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
The judicial exceptions of claims 1-26, per the guidance outlined in MPEP 2106.04(d), are not integrated into a practical application because the claims as presented merely list intended outcomes of operating generic computers to facilitate an online betting platform with various additions of insignificant post-solution activity, without providing any improvements to a computer or to a technological field. In the field of the instant invention, an improvement would have to be found to an inherently technical problem and would have to reveal how the computer(s) themselves or field of e-commerce are improved as a direct result of the claimed invention. And the details of the improvement to computers or e-commerce cannot be found in the details of the abstract ideas (details of fundamental economic or commercial practices or steps that are the equivalent of human work rooted in the pre-digital era) themselves. Genetic Techs v Merial, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature" itself. A hypothetical improvement in how existing information is retrieved and displayed to human consumers without any evidence of an improvement to computers per se being caused by the retrieval or display is not sufficient to transform the abstract concept of a sports wagering marketplace into a practical application. The Supreme Court has held that “generic computer components” do not become patent eligible simply upon being “configured” to perform “specific computerized functions.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360.
The court also ruled in International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc., (CAFC, 17 October, 2022) (emphasis added), that "improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims" patent-eligible at step one. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“A patent-eligible technical improvement requires solving an actual problem.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (a claim directed to automating part of a 3D facial-expression animation method focused on a specific asserted improvement where the prior-art animator performed the task manually); Data Engine Techs., 906 F.3d at 1007–08 (a claimed method was not abstract where it “provide[d] a specific solution to then-existing technological problems in . . . prior art electronic spreadsheets,” and those pre-existing problems — that users of three-dimensional spreadsheets had to “master many complex and arbitrary operations” — were taught by the specification); cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rejecting an asserted improvement where “Interval Licensing [did] not allege that computer display devices were previously unable to display information from more than one source”).
Neither the claims nor the specification of the instant invention identifies any existing problems that are inherently technical in nature that are being solved in any specific ways by the steps of the claim. The claims are instead limited to a high-level description of fundamental data filtering and retrieval practices wherein generic computing components merely serve as a source for gathered data being applied to sports bettors.
MPEP 2106.05(a) provides examples that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer functionality or show an improvement in existing technology. Here it is noted that:
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
And MPEP 2106.05(f) describes that:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);
None of the examples provided by the courts for improving computer functionality are found in the instant claims. The instant claims are similar to examples the courts have not found to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”, including mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records for applying a commonplace business practice is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The pending claims are a list of mere instructions to implement data analysis and retrieval using generic computers.
The claim fails to recite details regarding how a computer aids the method or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. No particular machine or manufacture is claimed that is used to implement the abstract idea or that is/are integral to the claim. There is no recited effectuation of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. There is no application of the abstract ideas in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1290-1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claim merely limits the buying and selling of game items originating from a game that is the equivalent of human mental work to the prior art field of e-commerce.
Furthermore, none of the additional elements identified above are sufficient to amount to an inventive concept(s) because none of the additional elements reveal any specific improvements to the function of any computer(s) or to a field of technology, no particular machine or manufacture is claimed that is used to implement the abstract idea or that is/are integral to the claim, there is no recited effectuation of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and there is no application of the abstract ideas in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
A thorough analysis of each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as part of an ordered combination shows that the claims 1-26 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0139153 A1 to Huke et al.
Re claim 1, Huke teaches: a computer-implemented method for content generation comprising: accessing one or more digital betting platforms,
Fig. 1, Wagering Network 114 accessible by mobile device 108
wherein the one or more digital betting platforms each provide one or more betting odds opportunities for an online user, and wherein the one or more betting odds opportunities include sporting events;
the abstract describes Huke as a method for displaying news relevant to a user of a play-by-play wagering system.
the abstract describes a preferred embodiment of Azuoulas as providing for a news article about a sports team along with betting information regarding an upcoming event
[0018]-[0024] describes various types of wagering opportunities in a digital sportsbook, such as a money line wager subject to money odds.
detecting a content trigger event, wherein the content trigger event corresponds to at least one of the one or more betting odds opportunities;
Fig. 2, at step 200, a function is called wherein new data is polled from a news database.
[0073] describes that this poll seeks news that is “relevant to any players” for use in “wagering app 110”
[0074] indicates that news database 126, which is browsed by news module, “may contain news data that may be useful to users in deciding how to wager … may contain news articles or social media relevant to the live event 102, the teams, the players … or any other factor that may inform the user about how to best place their wager.”
aggregating data from the at least one of the one or more betting odds opportunities, wherein the data enables generating a human-readable online article;
[0073] describes that player news module pulls relevant data from a news database 126 and extracts news content into a form suitable for displaying via the wagering app 110.
Fig. 2 illustrates a process of polling a news database, extracting news content, searching it for player names relevant to a current wager, and if matches are found, sending news content for extracted user ID’s. At step 212, extracting a user id “from each matching entry” ant at step 214 sending news content for each extracted user ID is an example of aggregating data.
selecting one or more dynamic article features related to the at least one of the one or more betting odds opportunities; and publishing the online article, wherein the online article includes the at least one of the one or more betting odds opportunities and the one or more dynamic article features.
[0073], “The player news module 124 may send, at step 214, the news content to the mobile device 108 associated with each extracted user ID. This content may then be displayed via the wagering app 110.”
Re claims 6-7, as there is no definition of what steps, functions or features are involved in facilitating batch publishing or search engine optimization in this claim, the process of Fig. 2 of Huke that enables a potential plurality of articles to be sent to a user’s mobile device at a given time based on identifying relevant content is interpreted as batch publishing and search engine optimization.
Re claim 24, see “sportsbook” in [0017], [0021], [0058].
Re claims 25-26, refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke in view of US 2015/0032468 A1 to Soon-Shiong.
Re claims 2-4, Although Huke teaches substantially the same inventive concept including data mining and posting digital sporting-event related information relevant to a forthcoming sports wager, Huke is silent as to whether the information is cross-validated.
Soon-Shiong is an anlalogous prior art reference that discovers data from large datasets and that teaches it was known to validate the information using a cross-validation engine – see the abstract, [0030], [0046], [0052].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that Huke could have cross-validating sporting event information before pushing it to mobile devices for the same reason as Soon-Shiong – to screen for anomalous data.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke in view of US8,849,809 B1 to Seshadri.
Re claim 5, Although Huke teaches substantially the same inventive concept including crawling databases in search of articles containing data relevant to forthcoming sports wagers, Huke is silent as to whether these articles are randomly published.
Seshadri is an analogous automated news event identifying and publishing reference that teaches it was known to select articles at random for publishing, see 5:55-6:7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that Huke could have randomly selected articles for publishing as taught by Huke without causing any unexpected results. The motivation would be to provide a constant stream of media even when there might be a lull in initiating wagers.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke in view of US 2024/0284014 A1 to Azuolas et al.
Re claim 18, Although Huke teaches substantially the same inventive concept including formatting articles containing data relevant to forthcoming sports wagers and displaying them at mobile devices, Huke does not go into detail as to whether these articles can comprise images.
Azuolas is an analogous digital sportsbook that, too, displays relevant news articles alongside betting opportunities, see Figs. 1-2. Azuolas teaches it was known in this art that such articles can comprise images, see Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that Huke’s relevant sports articles could have comprised images as taught by Azuolas without causing any unexpected results, as this feature dates back to print publications.
Re claim 19, [0092] of Azuolas teaches that the viewer may interact with secondary digital content such as by clicking, enabling bet placement processed by a server-based app. This is interpreted as teaching a betting widget.
Re claim 20, [0099] of Azuolas teaches categorizing articles after they are extracted and ranked.
Re claims 21-23, [0104]-[0105] of Azuolas teaches triggering data monitor ingress periodically such as once a day and [0082] teaches contextual updates based on updated sports betting information.
Claims 8-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke in view of US 2014/0283055 A1 to Zahran
Re claims 8-9 and 16-17, Although Huke teaches substantially the same inventive concept including formatting articles containing data relevant to forthcoming sports wagers and displaying them at mobile devices, Huke is silent as to whether content is generated using templates and/or machine learning.
Zahran is an analogous method for automated generation of online articles. Zehran teaches that traditionally, online media companies use templates to structure information for digital posting, see [0018]-[00119]. Zahran additionally teaches it is known that machine learning is being leveraged to determine what content is included in online articles, see [0041].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that templates and/or machine learning could have been used in Huke to affect the content and style of published digital articles without causing any unexpected results.
Re claim 10, Huke teaches that content is customized based on a given betting opportunity, see “Customized betting” in [0045], and [0073] which describes extracting and displaying news data relevant to sports betting.
Re claim 11, Huke in [0064] discloses that game situational data may be obtained from cloud 106 instead of or in addition to the wagering network 114.
Re claims 12-13, see [0069] of Huke which discloses a news model seeking team and league data relevant to a player.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke in view of Zahran and US 2024/0284014 A1 to Azuolas et al.
Re claims 13-15, Although Huke in view of Zahran teaches substantially the same inventive concept, Huke-Zahran are silent as to whether articles are categorized or refreshed. [0099] of Azuolas additionally teaches categorizing articles after they are extracted and ranked and [0104]-[0105] of Azuolas additionally teaches a variety of techniques for automatically refreshing content used for articles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the digital publishing techniques of Azuolas could have been incorporated into Huke-Zahran without causing any unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715