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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/667,263 originally filed on May 17, 2024. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 5/17/2024 and 12/17/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 on July 5, 2024. This application claims foreign priority of GB2308208.4 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), filed June 1, 2023.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), claim 15 is directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process), and claim 16 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “communicating user information,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (from exemplary claim 15):
“communicating… at least some of the user profile information… and
performing… one or more processing operations in dependence on at least some of the user profile information received...”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a portable user device,” “an entertainment system,” “a video game processing device,” “one or more input devices,” and “a second device” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “communicating user information” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a portable user device,” “an entertainment system,” “a video game processing device,” “one or more input devices,” and “a second device” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “portable user device” is described in paragraph [0027] as follows: “The portable user device 210 may be one of a smartphone device, smartwatch device and tablet computing device associated with a user and which stores user profile information associated with the user. The portable user device 210 may comprise any suitable storage circuitry (e.g. non-volatile memory such as flash memory) for storing the user profile information.”
Applicant’s claimed “an entertainment system,” “a video game processing device,” and “one or more input devices” are described in paragraph [0025] as follows: “The entertainment system 220 comprises the video game processing device 230 and the one or more input devices 240 so that the video game processing device 230 is operable to perform processing operations, such as processing one or more video games, in accordance with input signals received from one or more of the input devices 240. In some embodiments of the disclosure, the entertainment system 220 may comprise a video game console (as an example of the video game processing device 230) and handheld video game controller (as an example of the one or more input devices 240).”
Applicant’s claimed “a second device” is described as a part of the “entertainment system” in paragraph [0032]: “The term second device is used herein to refer to a device that is part of the entertainment system.” The second device is further described in paragraph [0031] as “one or more selected from the video game processing device 230 and one or more of the input devices 240.”
Therefore, these elements are reasonably interpreted as generic computers or generic computing components, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (hereinafter “Schmidt,” US 2006/0068910) in view of Lipscomb (US 2016/0337370).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 15 and 16, Schmidt discloses a system comprising:
a portable user device configured to store user profile information associated with a user (see Schmidt Fig. 4a, showing USB memory device 230A; also Schmidt [0070], “gaming data that may be stored on USB memory device 230A includes gaming configuration data also called a ‘gamer profile.’”); and
an entertainment system comprising a video game processing device and one or more input devices (see Schmidt Fig. 1, showing game console 100 as the video game processing device, and game controller 190 as the one or more input devices),
the portable user device being configured to communicate at least some of the user profile information to a second device … wherein the second device is one or more selected from the video game processing device and one or more of the input devices (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device. In this manner, a user may store a saved game, a "left-handed" controller configuration, and the like to the portable device for possible uploading to another game controller at a different location.”);
wherein the video game processing device is configured to perform one or more processing operations in dependence on at least some of the user profile information received from the portable user device (Schmidt [0070], “gaming data that may be stored on USB memory device 230A includes gaming configuration data also called a "gamer profile." For example, game console 100 may store game related configuration settings, such as, a "left handed" game controller 190 configuration to USB memory device 230A. In this manner, a user can carry USB memory device 230A to their friend's house and be able to upload that "left handed" game controller 190 configuration to their friend's game console 100.”).
Schmidt does not teach that the profile information is communicated to the second device via near-field communication.
In Schmidt, “[c]ommunication between a game console having a communication port and a portable device is facilitated by determining that a portable device has been directly connected to the communication port” (emphasis added). Therefore, Schmidt does not teach that the profile information is communicated to the second device via near-field communication.
However, Lipscomb discloses that the profile information is communicated to the second device via near-field communication (Lipscomb [0033], “The portable device 100 can directly connect to the base device 130 in a physical manner (e.g, wired connection or port interface) or in a local wireless manner (e.g., near field communication, bluetooth connection, bluetooth low energy connection, bluetooth smart connection, Wi-Fi direct connection, infrared communication, ultrasonic communication, subsonic communication, active radio frequency identification, passive radio frequency identification, or another method of wireless connection),” wired connection of near field communication connection can be used).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of game consoles. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include that the profile information is communicated to the second device via near-field communication, as taught by Lipscomb, since it would have been a simple substitution of one known data communication element for another to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information is indicative of one or more user specified settings (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device.”).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information is indicative of one or more control input mappings specified by the user for one or more input devices (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device.”).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information is indicative of one or more user specified settings comprising one or more from the list consisting of: one or more display settings; one or more audio settings; and one or more graphical user interface settings (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device,” application configuration settings; also Schmidt [0071], “Further gaming data that can be stored and uploaded via USB memory device 230A includes a team icon, a custom playbook/roster, a player emblem, a log of last played games, customization, a racing game suspension setting, a racing game bike model or color, a racing game suit color, and the like. If the user then plays the game at a friend's house, the user can access the stored game settings via the USB memory device 230A by uploading his game configuration settings to the game console 100 at the friend's house,” these are display settings or graphical user interface settings).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile information is indicative of one or more login credentials for accessing an account associated with a software application on the video game processing device.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information is indicative of one or more login credentials for accessing an account associated with a software application on the video game processing device (Lipscomb Abstract, “When the user encounters a base device, the user can transfer his/her profile data set from the portable device to the base device, allowing the base device temporary authorization to download software applications owned by that user's profile to the base device, and also transferring software settings and purchase settings”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the user profile information is indicative of one or more login credentials for accessing an account associated with a software application on the video game processing device, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the portable user device is configured to store a software application comprising the user profile information.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device is configured to store a software application comprising the user profile information (Lipscomb [0011], “The portable device then transmits a profile data set related to a profile of a user to the base device. The profile data set authorizes the base device to download a software application from a network server to a memory of the base device. The portable device then transmits an authorization token to the base device. The authorization token authorizes the base device to execute the software application according to a set of software settings included within the profile data set.”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the portable user device is configured to store a software application comprising the user profile information, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the portable user device comprises a display to display one or more graphical user interfaces associated with the software application for receiving one or more user inputs indicative of at least some of the user profile information associated with the user.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device comprises a display to display one or more graphical user interfaces associated with the software application for receiving one or more user inputs indicative of at least some of the user profile information associated with the user (Lipscomb [0022], “The portable device 100 could also be a mobile device 110, such as a smartphone device, a tablet device, a laptop computer, a wearable device, or a portable media player device”; also see Lipscomb Figs. 2A-B and [0046], “the portable device 100 could then transmit the profile data set 170 to the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) the authorize the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to start downloading a set of games (“software authorized to download” 200) from the network 160. Once the user and the friend are ready to play a game, the user can transmit an authorization token 175 to the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to authorize the playing of the user's favorite games on the friend's game console (i.e., base device 130) (“software that this base device is authorized to run” 240). The user could choose not to authorize the playing of some games even if he/she has authorized the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to download them (i.e., SOFTWARE B and SOFTWARE D were present in “software authorized to download” 200 but are missing from “software that this base device is authorized to run” 240).”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the portable user device comprises a display to display one or more graphical user interfaces associated with the software application for receiving one or more user inputs indicative of at least some of the user profile information associated with the user, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the portable user device is configured to display one or more graphical user interfaces associated with the software application for receiving one or more user inputs indicative of one or more selected portions of the user profile information to be made available for being communicated by the portable user device using near field communication.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device is configured to display one or more graphical user interfaces associated with the software application for receiving one or more user inputs indicative of one or more selected portions of the user profile information to be made available for being communicated by the portable user device using near field communication (Lipscomb [0022], “The portable device 100 could also be a mobile device 110, such as a smartphone device, a tablet device, a laptop computer, a wearable device, or a portable media player device,” graphical user interface; also [0033], “The portable device 100 can directly connect to the base device 130 in a physical manner (e.g, wired connection or port interface) or in a local wireless manner (e.g., near field communication, bluetooth connection, bluetooth low energy connection, bluetooth smart connection, Wi-Fi direct connection, infrared communication, ultrasonic communication, subsonic communication, active radio frequency identification, passive radio frequency identification, or another method of wireless connection),” near field communication; also see Lipscomb Figs. 2A-B and [0046], “the portable device 100 could then transmit the profile data set 170 to the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) the authorize the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to start downloading a set of games (“software authorized to download” 200) from the network 160. Once the user and the friend are ready to play a game, the user can transmit an authorization token 175 to the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to authorize the playing of the user's favorite games on the friend's game console (i.e., base device 130) (“software that this base device is authorized to run” 240). The user could choose not to authorize the playing of some games even if he/she has authorized the friend's video game console (i.e., base device 130) to download them (i.e., SOFTWARE B and SOFTWARE D were present in “software authorized to download” 200 but are missing from “software that this base device is authorized to run” 240).”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the portable user device is configured to display one or more graphical user interfaces associated with the software application for receiving one or more user inputs indicative of one or more selected portions of the user profile information to be made available for being communicated by the portable user device using near field communication, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt does not teach wherein the user profile information comprises video game asset information for enabling access to one or more video game assets associated with one or more video games, and wherein the portable device is configured to communicate at least some of the video game asset information to the second device via near field communication to enable access to one or more of the video game assets by the video game processing device.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the user profile information comprises video game asset information for enabling access to one or more video game assets associated with one or more video games, and wherein the portable device is configured to communicate at least some of the video game asset information to the second device via near field communication to enable access to one or more of the video game assets by the video game processing device (Lipscomb [0020], “Embodiments of the present invention allow for a user's portable device (e.g., wireless mobile device or standalone connector device) to be used to store a profile data set associated with the profile of the user. When the user encounters a base device, the user can transfer his/her profile data set from the portable device to the base device, allowing the base device temporary authorization to download software applications owned by that user's profile to the base device, and also transferring software settings and purchase settings. The user can then trigger the portable device to transfer an authorization token to the base device, authorizing the base device to execute the downloaded software applications, to execute the downloaded software applications according to the user's software settings, and/or to make purchases through the base device using the user's purchase settings. Terminating the connection automatically terminates these authorizations.”).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the user profile information comprises video game asset information for enabling access to one or more video game assets associated with one or more video games, and wherein the portable device is configured to communicate at least some of the video game asset information to the second device via near field communication to enable access to one or more of the video game assets by the video game processing device, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt does not teach wherein the portable user device is configured to communicate at least some of the video game asset information to the second device in response to selection input by the user of a temporary share mode to enable a time-limited access to one or more of the video game assets by the video game processing device.
However, Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device is configured to communicate at least some of the video game asset information to the second device in response to selection input by the user of a temporary share mode to enable a time-limited access to one or more of the video game assets by the video game processing device (Lipscomb [0053], “The connection between the portable device 100 and the base device 130 may then be terminated (step 340), either manually (e.g., through button, switch, or other graphical or mechanical user interface) or automatically (e.g., by physical unplugging the portable device 100 from a physical/wired connection to the base device 130, or by moving the portable device 100 far enough away that a local wireless connection stops functioning, or via a timer). Once the connection between the portable device 100 and the base device 130 is terminated, the various authorizations granted to the base device 130 are also terminated (step 345),” the timer can be used to enable time-limited access).
Lipscomb is analogous to Schmidt, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt, to include wherein the portable user device is configured to communicate at least some of the video game asset information to the second device in response to selection input by the user of a temporary share mode to enable a time-limited access to one or more of the video game assets by the video game processing device, as taught by Lipscomb, in order to improve software application delivery and user profile systems (Lipscomb [0009-0010]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device is configured to acquire at least some of the user profile information from one or more other processing devices previously used by the user (Schmidt [0006], “the ancillary application may allow the game console user to store and retrieve game application configuration settings and game controller configuration settings to and from the portable device. In this manner, a user may store a saved game, a "left-handed" controller configuration, and the like to the portable device for possible uploading to another game controller at a different location,” saving saved games and controller settings to the portable device from the game console).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb discloses wherein the portable user device is one selected from the list consisting of: a smartphone device; a smartwatch device; and a tablet computing device (Schmidt [0036], “Portable media device 210 may be any portable media device compatible with the communication ports of game console 100 (i.e., USB controller 126) including, for example, smart portable phone 210A, digital camera 210B, video camera 210C (which may be Firewire compatible), personal digital assistant (PDA) 210D, audio player 210E (which may be a MP3 player, a player compatible with WMA files, etc.), and the like, as shown in FIG. 3a.”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, and in further view of Shah et al. (hereinafter “Shah,” US 2014/0121010).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt in view of Lipscomb does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile information is indicative of two or more different control input mappings specified by the user for a same input device, each of the two or more different control input mappings being associated with a different video game.
However, Shah discloses wherein the user profile information is indicative of two or more different control input mappings specified by the user for a same input device, each of the two or more different control input mappings being associated with a different video game (see Shah Fig. 5 and [0016], “FIG. 5 illustrates certain exemplary mappings that describe translation from game controller events to input events understood by different video games according to a specific embodiment of the present invention.”).
Shah is analogous to Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, to include wherein the user profile information is indicative of two or more different control input mappings specified by the user for a same input device, each of the two or more different control input mappings being associated with a different video game, as taught by Shah, in order to unlock a treasure chest of inexpensive and exciting mobile devices based video games for the player of the video gaming system (Shah [0009]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein in response to receiving user profile information indicative of at least one control input mapping, the videogame processing device is configured to perform one or more processing operations using the at least one control input mapping instead of another control input mapping stored by the videogame processing device.
However, Shah discloses wherein in response to receiving user profile information indicative of at least one control input mapping, the videogame processing device is configured to perform one or more processing operations using the at least one control input mapping instead of another control input mapping stored by the videogame processing device (see Shah [0010], “he second set of instructions are executable by the processing unit to perform the steps of determining identity of the video game associated with the first set of instructions and initiating query to a data store containing a plurality of mappings. Any of the plurality of the mappings provides translation information between a plurality of input events receivable from the second input device and a plurality of input events receivable from the one or more first input devices. The plurality of the mappings in the data store are associated with a plurality of video games, respectively. Moreover, the second set of instructions are executable by the processing unit to perform the step of obtaining based at least upon the identity of the video game a first mapping for the video game associated with the first set of instructions.”).
Shah is analogous to Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, as both are drawn to the art of electronic games. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Schmidt in view of Lipscomb, to include wherein in response to receiving user profile information indicative of at least one control input mapping, the videogame processing device is configured to perform one or more processing operations using the at least one control input mapping instead of another control input mapping stored by the videogame processing device, as taught by Shah, in order to unlock a treasure chest of inexpensive and exciting mobile devices based video games for the player of the video gaming system (Shah [0009]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith et al. (US 2013/0310163) Gaming-related use and modification of profiles
Rico (US 2017/0274286) Systems and methods for providing user information to game console
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715