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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “gain status information” recited in [0006] should likely read “game status information”. Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The Specification does not disclose wherein the control subsystem includes a game environment control platform and a floor controller, as recited in claims 2 and 9; and
The Specification does not disclose “voting timing signals” provided from the game environment control platform to the plurality of user devices, as recited in claims 3 and 10.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. “the plurality players” recited in claim 1, ln. 10, claim 2, ln. 6-7, claim 8, ln. 10, and claim 9, ln. 6-7 should likely read “the plurality of players”;
b. “to gain status information relating to the sporting event” recited in claim 1, ln. 10-11 should likely read “to game status information relating to the sporting event” (see Specification, [0068]);
“the plurality of illumination elements” recited in claim 2, ln. 8-9 and claim 9, ln. 9-10 should likely read “the arrangement of illumination elements” for consistency purposes;
“the live sporting event” recited in claim 3, ln. 3 and claim 10, ln. 5 should likely read “[[the]]a live sporting event”;
“by ones of” recited in claim 5, ln. 2 and claim 12, ln. 2 should likely read “by one[[s]] of”;
“the user devices” recited in claim 16, ln. 1-2 should likely read “the plurality of user devices”; and
“the video stream” recited in claim 16, ln. 4, 5, & 11 should likely read “the ive stream” for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a. control subsystem as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15; and
b. game environment control platform as recited in claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, and 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a control subsystem configured to control operation of the arrangement of illumination elements responsive to the locations of the one or more of the players and to gain status information relating to the sporting event”. The Specification repeats this claim language in [0006], which is the only location that mentions a “control subsystem”. The Specification does not disclose what the control subsystem comprises, and thus, fails to provide support for the full scope of the claim limitation, such as framework to perform the claimed function. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasoning.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims.
Claim 2 recites in part “wherein the control subsystem includes a game environment control platform […], the game environment control platform being configured to execute computer readable instructions to (i) receive user voting information from a plurality of user devices, (ii) generate illumination control instructions in response to one or more of the user voting information, the game status information and the locations of the one or more of the plurality of players, and (iii) send the illumination control instructions to the floor controller”. However, the Specification does not disclose what the game environment control platform comprises (i.e., software, hardware, something else?), and thus, fails to provide support for the full scope of the claim limitation.
Claims 3, 7, 9-10, and 14 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 3-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 2. Claims 10-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 9, and claim 16 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are indefinite because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of the “control subsystem” and “game environment control platform”. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 recites in part “a substantially transparent layer”. The term “substantially transparent” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially transparent” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasoning.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims.
Claim 3 recites “The system of claim 2 wherein the game environment control platform is further configured to provide voting timing signals to the plurality of user devices wherein each of the user devices include a media player for rendering a video stream of the live sporting event and wherein each of the user devices is operative to instantiate a voting user interface in response to one of the voting timing signals, the voting user interface being arranged to permit a user to enter a vote with respect to a game event occurring in the live sporting event.” It is indefinite as to what the voting timing signals comprise (i.e., a polling period for which the user is to provide a vote, or something else?) and/or if the voting timing signals are intended to differ from a time behind live, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, [0047], which only discloses wherein the user device determines a time behind live (TBL) and delays instantiating the voting user interface accordingly).
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 4, 11, and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 3 and 10.
No prior art is currently provided for claims 3-4, 10-11, and 16 in light of the indefinite rejection presented above.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reithler et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0248302 A1) (hereinafter “Reithler”).
Regarding claim 1, Reithler discloses a system (Figs. 3-4 & 11-12; [0042]; [0047]; [0059]), comprising:
a multi-layer structure having a playing surface upon which a plurality of players participate in a sporting event, the multi-layer structure including an arrangement of illumination elements configured to controllably emit light, the arrangement of illumination elements being separated by a gap from a substantially transparent layer supporting the playing surface (Figs. 3-4 & 11-12; [0002-0008]; [0042]; [0046-0048]; [0059], a multi-layer (e.g., top and subjacent layers) surface (e.g., sports ground) comprising integrated light sources in the at least one subjacent layer which are connected to a controller to controllably emit light, and wherein the top layer is translucent allowing for light to be revealed when the light sources are on, wherein “translucent” designates materials that are semi-transparent or transparent);
a player tracking subsystem including a plurality of sensors configured to provide detection signals useable to track locations of one or more of the plurality of players relative to the playing surface (Figs. 3 & 12; [0013]; [0048-0049]; [0059], wherein pressure sensors may be arranged in or underneath the at least one top layer in the vicinity of and/or overlapping with the one or more patterns of the light sources and may be used to determine location(s) of player(s) (e.g., a player’s foot) relative to the surface, and further, wherein the controller may comprise an interface for coupling with an indoor positioning system capable of tracking the position of the players and the ball); and
a control subsystem configured to control operation of the arrangement of illumination elements responsive to the locations of the one or more of the plurality players and to gain status information relating to the sporting event (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the controller controls operation of the light sources, allowing a user to switch one or more of the patterns on or off, based on sport line markings and additional functionalities (e.g., out-of-bounds highlighting, player position highlighting, player motion tracking, etc.)).
Regarding claim 8, Reithler discloses a system for use with a multi-layer structure having a playing surface upon which a plurality of players participate in a sporting event, the multi-layer structure including an arrangement of illumination elements configured to controllably emit light, the arrangement of illumination elements being separated by a gap from a substantially transparent layer supporting the playing surface (Figs. 3-4 & 11-12; [0002-0008]; [0042]; [0046-0048]; [0059], a multi-layer (e.g., top and subjacent layers) surface (e.g., sports ground) comprising integrated light sources in the at least one subjacent layer which are connected to a controller to controllably emit light, and wherein the top layer is translucent allowing for light to be revealed when the light sources are on, wherein “translucent” designates materials that are semi-transparent or transparent), the system comprising:
a player tracking subsystem including a plurality of sensors configured to provide detection signals useable to track locations of one or more of the plurality of players relative to the playing surface (Figs. 3 & 12; [0013]; [0048-0049]; [0059], wherein pressure sensors may be arranged in or underneath the at least one top layer in the vicinity of and/or overlapping with the one or more patterns of the light sources and may be used to determine location(s) of player(s) (e.g., a player’s foot) relative to the surface, and further, wherein the controller may comprise an interface for coupling with an indoor positioning system capable of tracking the position of the players and the ball); and
a control subsystem configured to control operation of the arrangement of illumination elements responsive to the locations of the one or more of the plurality players and to game status information relating to the sporting event (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the controller controls operation of the light sources, allowing a user to switch one or more of the patterns on or off, based on sport line markings and additional functionalities (e.g., out-of-bounds highlighting, player position highlighting, player motion tracking, etc.)).
Regarding claim 15, Reithler further discloses wherein the control subsystem is further configured to control operation of the arrangement of illumination elements in order to cause display of one or more of: video content, 2D/3D animations, game statistics, and player statistics ([0008]; [0013-0014]; [0047]; [0049]; [0057]; [0059], wherein the one or more patterns of the light sources (LEDs) include at least one of emergency path indications, game lines (e.g., wherein a line may change its color when an impact is detected), orientation helps, a logo, a pictogram, a traffic sign and an icon).
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.
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 2, 5-7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reithler in view of Eatedali et al. (U.S. 11,148,063 B2) (hereinafter “Eatedali”).
Regarding claim 2, Reithler further discloses wherein the control subsystem includes a game environment control platform and a floor controller wherein the floor controller is electrically connected to the arrangement of illumination elements (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the controller has a user interface which allows the user to control operation of light sources, and where the controller is electrically connected to the light sources). Additionally, Reithler discloses wherein the game environment control platform is configured to execute computer readable instructions to generate illumination control instructions in response to one or more of user voting information, the game status information and the locations of the one or more of the plurality players, and send the illumination control instructions to the floor controller; wherein the floor controller is configured to control light emission by the plurality of illumination elements in response to the control instructions (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the user interface may offer the option to generate illumination control instructions in response to game status information and/or locations of the one or more players (i.e., determined via the pressure sensors), and wherein the control instructions may then be provided to the controller to control the operation of the light sources accordingly (e.g., change color or intensity of a line pattern, highlighting out-of-bounds, player position highlighting, player motion tracking, etc.)).
As noted above, Reithler discloses receiving user voting information (input) from a single user, and wherein the control instructions may further be generated based on the user voting information (input) from the single user (Figs. 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059]). However, Reithler may not further explicitly disclose the game environment control platform being configured to execute the computer readable instructions to receive user voting information from a plurality of user devices. Nevertheless, Eatedali, directed to streaming live sporting/gameplay events (Col. 5, ln. 12-34; Col. 11, ln. 46-50), teaches wherein a plurality of users may vote on the occurrence of gameplay events via respective end user devices (Col. 7, ln. 40-51; Col. 10, ln. 32-56; Col. 11, ln. 46-50). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for user voting from a plurality of user devices, as taught by Eatedali, to further allow additional users to participate in the event (Eatedali, Col. 5, ln. 12-34).
Regarding claim 5, Reithler further discloses wherein the illumination control instructions indicate that portions of the playing surface proximate a first of the plurality of players are to be illuminated by ones of the illumination elements (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the control instructions may control the operation of the light sources such as to highlight a player position and/or motion).
Regarding claim 6, Reithler further discloses wherein the illumination control instructions indicate that at least one area of the playing surface is to be illuminated for a defined duration ([0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0055]; [0059], wherein the control instructions may control the operation of the lights sources (LEDs) (e.g., change color or intensity of a line pattern, highlighting out-of-bounds, player position highlighting, player motion tracking, etc.), wherein the light sources may be controllable regarding color, brightness, and/or duration of activation).
Regarding claim 7, Reithler further discloses wherein the game environment control platform is further configured to execute the computer readable instructions to initiate a cooldown timer after generating the illumination control instructions indicating that at least one area of the playing surface is to be illuminated and to refrain from sending additional illumination control instructions identifying another area of the playing surface for illumination until after expiration of the cooldown timer ([0046-0047]; [0049]; [0059], wherein the controller may be interfaced with the sports facility’s agenda software (scheduling tool) in order to automatically change the displayed/illuminated patterns depending on the data (scheduled events after specific times (expiration of a cooldown timer)), such that the patterns could be automatically switched from a basketball court to a tennis court, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Reithler further discloses wherein the control subsystem includes a game environment control platform and a floor controller wherein the floor controller is electrically connected to the arrangement of illumination elements (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the controller has a user interface which allows the user to control operation of light sources, and where the controller is electrically connected to the light sources). Additionally, Reithler discloses wherein the game environment control platform is configured to execute computer readable instructions to generate illumination control instructions in response to one or more of user voting information, the game status information and the locations of the one or more of the plurality players or game elements, and send the illumination control instructions to the floor controller; wherein the floor controller is configured to control light emission by the plurality of illumination elements in response to the control instructions (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the user interface may offer the option to generate illumination control instructions in response to game status information (e.g., out-of-bounds) and/or locations of the one or more players (i.e., determined via the pressure sensors), and wherein the control instructions may then be provided to the controller to control the operation of the light sources accordingly (e.g., change color or intensity of a line pattern, highlighting out-of-bounds, player position highlighting, player motion tracking, etc.)).
As noted above, Reithler discloses receiving user voting information (input) from a single user, and wherein the control instructions may further be generated based on the user voting information (input) from the single user (Figs. 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059]). However, Reithler may not further explicitly disclose the game environment control platform being configured to execute the computer readable instructions to receive user voting information from a plurality of user devices. Nevertheless, Eatedali, directed to streaming live sporting/gameplay events (Col. 5, ln. 12-34; Col. 11, ln. 46-50), teaches wherein a plurality of users may vote on the occurrence of gameplay events via respective end user devices (Col. 7, ln. 40-51; Col. 10, ln. 32-56; Col. 11, ln. 46-50). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for user voting from a plurality of user devices, as taught by Eatedali, to further allow additional users to participate in the event (Eatedali, Col. 5, ln. 12-34).
Regarding claim 12, Reithler further discloses wherein the illumination control instructions indicate that portions of the playing surface proximate a first of the plurality of players are to be illuminated by ones of the illumination elements (Figs. 3 & 11-12; [0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0059], wherein the control instructions may control the operation of the light sources such as to highlight a player position and/or motion).
Regarding claim 13, Reithler further discloses wherein the illumination control instructions indicate that at least one area of the playing surface is to be illuminated for a defined duration ([0007]; [0013]; [0047-0049]; [0055]; [0059], wherein the control instructions may control the operation of the lights sources (LEDs) (e.g., change color or intensity of a line pattern, highlighting out-of-bounds, player position highlighting, player motion tracking, etc.), wherein the light sources may be controllable regarding color, brightness, and/or duration of activation).
Regarding claim 14, Reithler further discloses wherein the game environment control platform is further configured to execute the computer readable instructions to initiate a cooldown timer after generating the illumination control instructions indicating that at least one area of the playing surface is to be illuminated and to refrain from sending additional illumination control instructions identifying another area of the playing surface for illumination until after expiration of the cooldown timer ([0046-0047]; [0049]; [0059], wherein the controller may be interfaced with the sports facility’s agenda software (scheduling tool) in order to automatically change the displayed/illuminated patterns depending on the data (scheduled events after specific times (expiration of a cooldown timer)), such that the patterns could be automatically switched from a basketball court to a tennis court, etc.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 11,577,139 B1 – This reference teaches wherein a user interface may present a visual representation of a portion of a basketball court, such as lights indicating shot locations.
U.S. Pub. 2023/0328309 A1 – This reference teaches receiving user input (e.g., selection of different scoring opportunities) which may be used to generate for display video and/or highlights of identified players or sporting events associated with the scoring opportunities (e.g., a highlight/colored halo around a player).
U.S. Pub. 2021/0299549 A1 – This reference teaches lights within a floor surface of a field of play which indicates different areas on the floor surface related to a sports game (e.g., LED lights embedded in the surface which may mark areas such as a goal area).
WO 2011036614 A2 – This reference teaches LEDs within a floor surface configured to provide floor lighting and/or to be used as functional or decorative lighting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-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, 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715