DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 03/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Drawings filed on 03/29/2024 are noted.
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.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method, a computer system, and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium in claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 10 and 19) recites “1. A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memory devices, wherein the one or more memory devices are communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memory devices storing computer-executable instructions including at least a gameplay content generation system comprising base game data, global game data, a plurality of player accounts, and one or more gameplay generation models, wherein the base game data comprises one or more base game components, and wherein each of the plurality of player accounts is associated with a plurality of player data, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions by the one or more processors causes, during runtime, at least one of the one or more processors to generate gameplay content within a virtual interactive environment of a video game by:
receiving first player data, wherein the first player data is associated with a first player account of the plurality of player accounts;
adding the first player data to a first plurality of player data associated with the first player account;
training a first gameplay generation model of the one or more gameplay generation models using at least one of the global game data and the first plurality of player data;
receiving a first request to generate gameplay content corresponding to a first base game component;
generating first gameplay content, wherein the first gameplay content corresponds to the first base game component;
adding the first gameplay content to the first plurality of player data and the global game data; and
outputting the first gameplay content within the virtual interactive environment of the video game.”
The underlined portions of representative claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claims 10 and 19. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing player data, further generating and retraining by the gameplay content, comparisons, and judgments, etc. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
at least one step or instruction or rule for: (i) an observation, judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG;
a method of managing a game similar to that of managing a game of bingo in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential);
a set of game rules similar to increasing or decreasing the risk-to-reward ratio of a game, as discussed in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021);
use of machine learning in a given environment (e.g., for generating gameplay) as discussed in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025); and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The abstract idea is also similar to that of Planet Bingo, in which a method of managing a bingo game was found to be an abstract idea. Though the instant claims are not limited to bingo games, they encompass the management of similar games. The abstract idea is also comparable to the game rules presented on gaming machines in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, in which a reward probability could be increased or decreased based on aggregating previous game outcomes placed on the gaming machines. Like the claims in Recentive, the instant claims merely recite the use of generic machine learning applied to a given data environment. The Recentive court determined that claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using existing machine learning technology they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. The courts have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. Therefore, under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 10, and 19 further recite one or more processors and one or more memory devices, yet these are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The receiving, adding, training, generating and outputting steps are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Furthermore, the additional elements do not 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. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10, and 19 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, 10, and 19 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. one or more processors, one or more memory devices, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii).
The specification describes the relevant computer systems in generic, functional, and conventional terms. For example, the specification simply refers to one or more processors in generic and functional terms, without any specificity as to the type or capabilities of such processor(s). See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 44. Moreover, the specification admits that the “computing device might be a video game console device, a general-purpose laptop or desktop computer, a smart phone, a tablet, a server, or other suitable system..” Spec. ¶ 139. Such features are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional because they merely require generic and conventional computer components described at a high level of generality. Additionally, while the specification discusses the use of machine learning, it does not provide any indication that the machine learning themselves are improved in any way. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 85-90. Instead, the machine learning appear to be pre-existing, off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. Nothing in the claims provides detail about specific or improved machine learning. In light of the court decision in Recentive, this is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction.
Furthermore, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Claims 1 to 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., rules for conducting a game and/or mental process) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1 to 20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims. Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application. Claims 2-9 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 11-18 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 10. Claim 20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 19.
AIA Notice
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0325923 A1 to Hill et al. (hereinafter Hill).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 10 and 19, Hill discloses a computing system comprising:
one or more processors (¶ 67 discloses one or more processors); and
one or more memory devices, wherein the one or more memory devices are communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (¶¶ 67, 71 discloses one or more memory devices), the one or more memory devices storing computer-executable instructions including at least a gameplay content generation system comprising base game data, global game data, a plurality of player accounts (fig. 1, ¶¶ 19, 23), and one or more gameplay generation models (¶ 16), wherein the base game data comprises one or more base game components, and wherein each of the plurality of player accounts is associated with a plurality of player data (¶ 11-12, 19, 22), wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions by the one or more processors causes, during runtime, at least one of the one or more processors to generate gameplay content within a virtual interactive environment of a video game by:
receiving first player data, wherein the first player data is associated with a first player account of the plurality of player accounts (¶¶ 19, 23, 29, 45-46 discloses game state information from one or more gaming systems played by players of the environment; game state information can be received repeatedly and/or continuously and/or as events of games transpire);
adding the first player data to a first plurality of player data associated with the first player account (¶¶ 19, 45-49);
training a first gameplay generation model of the one or more gameplay generation models using at least one of the global game data and the first plurality of player data (fig. 1, persona datastore 112, content generation algorithm 116, ¶¶ 15-16, 45-49 discloses each of the content generation algorithms or models can generate content based in part on the player playstyle and/or persona such that players with different player playstyle and/or personas can be presented with different dynamically generated content);
receiving a first request to generate gameplay content corresponding to a first base game component (¶¶ 41, 45-49 discloses personalization system(s) can retrieve stored persona data from persona datastore and/or retrieve stored gameplay data from gameplay datastore);
generating first gameplay content, wherein the first gameplay content corresponds to the first base game component (¶¶ 15-16, 41, 45-49 discloses personalization system(s) can generate an animation for the particular player based on the gameplay data associated with the playstyle of the particular player in one or more games; personalization system(s) can dynamically generate, based at least in part on a portion of the playstyle of the player, content including personalized animation. In some examples, personalized animation can be dynamically generated in a game currently being played by the particular player. In various examples, personalized animation can be based, at least in part, on additional gameplay data associated with additional gameplay of the particular player during one or more additional games. In at least one example, personalized animation can be based, at least in part, on an animation modifier creating a blended animation associated with the playstyle of the particular player);
adding the first gameplay content to the first plurality of player data and the global game data (¶¶ 17, 45-49); and
outputting the first gameplay content within the virtual interactive environment of the video game (¶¶ 45-49, 56, 62 discloses transmit the content including personalized animation for presentation in a game associated with the player).
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 11, Hill discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein player data comprises at least one of: an amount of time a player has spent playing the video game, an amount of progress a player has made in completing a storyline of the video game, objects a player has previously interacted with in the video game, characters a player has previously interacted with in the video game, types of interactions the player has had within the video game, a percentage corresponding to how much of the virtual interactive environment the player has interacted with (¶¶ 11-12 discloses gameplay data can include playstyle associated with player(s) of one or more games. Gameplay data can also include persona data associated with player(s) of one or more games. Persona data can be associated with player and gameplay data. Playstyle characteristics can include indicators of how much of the player's time the player spent fighting and/or how quickly the player moved around the game to contribute to an aggressive playstyle; how much of the player's time was the player in motion, and how much of the player's time was the player interacting with other players in the game to contribute to an active playstyle; how much of the map did the player explore, and how much of the player's time was the player interacting with objects in the game to contribute to an inquisitive playstyle; how much of the player's time was the player stationary, and how much of the player's time was the player avoiding other players in the game to contribute to an passive playstyle, etc.).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 12, Hill discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions further causes at least one of the one or more processors to generate gameplay content by:
retraining, by the gameplay content generation system, the first gameplay generation model using at least one of the global game data and first plurality of player data (¶¶ 20, 47-48 discloses as players engage in additional gameplay, the persona system(s) disclosed herein can perform additional training or otherwise update player personas based on additional gameplay information. In this manner, the player personas can be refined or evolve to provide customized content to the players, even if the players' behaviors, preferences and playstyle evolve over time);
receiving, at the gameplay content generation system, a second request to generate gameplay content corresponding to the first gameplay content (¶¶ 20, 47-48); and
generating, by the first gameplay generation model, second gameplay content, wherein the second gameplay content corresponds to the first gameplay content (¶¶ 20, 47-48).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 14, Hill discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more gameplay generation models is a machine-learning model ¶¶ 79, 81).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Clam 15, Hill discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions further causes at least one of the one or more processors to generate gameplay content by:
transmitting the first gameplay content to a user platform, wherein the user platform is configured to communicate with one or more user computing devices (¶¶ 49, 56, 62).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 18, Hill discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein execution of the computer-executable instructions further causes at least one of the one or more processors to generate gameplay content by:
receiving, at the gameplay content generation system, second player data, wherein the second player data is associated with a second player account of the plurality of player accounts (¶¶ 11-12, 20, 47-48 discloses as players engage in additional gameplay, the persona system(s) disclosed herein can perform additional training or otherwise update player personas based on additional gameplay information. In this manner, the player personas can be refined or evolve to provide customized content to the players, even if the players' behaviors, preferences and playstyle evolve over time);
adding the second player data to a second plurality of player data associated with the second player account (¶¶ 11-12, 20, 47-48 discloses as players engage in additional gameplay, the persona system(s) disclosed herein can perform additional training or otherwise update player personas based on additional gameplay information. In this manner, the player personas can be refined or evolve to provide customized content to the players, even if the players' behaviors, preferences and playstyle evolve over time);
training, by the gameplay content generation system, a second gameplay generation model of the one or more gameplay generation models using at least one of the global game data and the second plurality of player data (¶¶ 11-12, 20, 47-48 discloses as players engage in additional gameplay, the persona system(s) disclosed herein can perform additional training or otherwise update player personas based on additional gameplay information. In this manner, the player personas can be refined or evolve to provide customized content to the players, even if the players' behaviors, preferences and playstyle evolve over time);
receiving, at the gameplay content generation system, a third request to generate gameplay content corresponding to the first base game component (¶¶ 11-12, 20, 47-48 discloses as players engage in additional gameplay, the persona system(s) disclosed herein can perform additional training or otherwise update player personas based on additional gameplay information. In this manner, the player personas can be refined or evolve to provide customized content to the players, even if the players' behaviors, preferences and playstyle evolve over time); and
generating, by the first gameplay generation model, third gameplay content, wherein the third gameplay content corresponds to the first base game component, and wherein the third gameplay content is different from the first gameplay content (¶¶ 11-12, 16, 20, 47-48 discloses as players engage in additional gameplay, the persona system(s) disclosed herein can perform additional training or otherwise update player personas based on additional gameplay information. In this manner, the player personas can be refined or evolve to provide customized content to the players, even if the players' behaviors, preferences and playstyle evolve over time).
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 4, 7-8, 13, 16-17 and 20, upon conducting a prior art search, the closest prior art appears to be U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0415038 A1 to Irwin et al. Irwin discloses systems are provided for generating and displaying aggregated gaming actions based on proposed game inputs provided via each of multiple remote client devices, related to real-time display of gaining content that is based at least in part on interactions of a first user with a remote gaming device. However, it does not explicitly disclose: “transmitting, by the gameplay content generation system, the first gameplay content to an aggregator; and aggregating, by the aggregator, the first gameplay content, wherein aggregating the first gameplay content comprises: comparing the first gameplay content to third gameplay content, wherein the third gameplay content is gameplay content generated by a second gameplay generation model of the one or more gameplay generation models, and wherein the second gameplay generation model is trained, at least in part, on a second plurality of player data associated with a second player account of the plurality of player accounts, …. transmitting the first gameplay content to a localization system, wherein the localization system comprises one or more localization models; transmitting second player data associated with the first plurality of player data, the second player data comprising a preferred language associated with the first player account; and localizing, by the localization system, the first gameplay content …..” As such, for at least these reasons, Examiner have found these limitations are neither anticipated by nor obvious over the closest prior art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715