DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 35 is 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 claim(s) contains 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. The claim recites “wherein providing the synthesized, particular output comprises providing the particular output for playback by a microphone.” However, review of applicant’s specification does provide a teaching for using a microphone for playback of output. Rather Par. 31 and 59 recite one or more speakers for providing audio output, and Par. 31 and 47-48 teach a microphone for receiving audio input. There is no teaching for using a microphone as an output. As best understood, examiner in interpreting Claim 35 to recite “providing the particular output for playback by a speaker.”
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 28-29 and 33-35 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "wherein one or more preferences" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood Claim 28 should depend on Claim 27 rather than Claim 1.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the video” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, the limitation should recite “the video game”.
The remainder of this office action is presented as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 26, 31, 35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, in view of Khorshid, US 2024/0045704. In the interest of expediting prosecution, with regard to Noce, US 2026/0007955, paragraph numbers in italics will be made to reference the figures and disclosure of the provisional application for Noce 63/666,872 dated 07/02/2024 which provide support for each cited paragraph.
In Reference to Claims 1, 38 and 39
Noce teaches a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions, one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions that are executed by one or more computers(Par. 47 (45). See also Par. 48(46) which teaches that the virtual assistant processing may also be performed on the game console. Finally see Par. 88-89(86-87) which teaches a processor and memory); and a computer implemented method comprising while a video game is executing, receiving an input from a user that requests an output related to one or more aspects of the video game that have already been played by the user (Abstract and Par. 53-55(51-53) which teaches the virtual assistant keeps track of game information such as map information, game-related items, or other game play answer questions or provide warnings upon request. See also Fig. 7(7) and Par. 107-108(96-97) which teaches a user inputting a request to a virtual assistant for a game and receiving information); identifying, based at least on executing a model that is trained to identify output data related to different aspects of the video game for different given inputs (Par. 15(14), 17(16), 29-30(27-28), 73(71), 93(91), 110(98) which teaches the system using artificial intelligence models including training a large language model using the game data.), particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game for the input from the user (Fig. 7(7), Par. 12(11), 16(15), 20(19), 45(43), and 124(110) which teach the virtual assistant artificial intelligence is configured to provide the “tips”, “hints”, or “advice” about the game. Par. 94(92) which teaches the assistant can analyze “information from previous plays of games by the user 22 (FIG. 1)” as well as other game-related information from the game makers or third party sources as information sources. See also And Par. 121-122(107-108) which teaches that the virtual assistant can analyze a user’s gameplay to provide suggestions or advice. See also Par. 94(92), 107(96)); providing the particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game as verbal sound output; and providing the verbal, particular output (Par. 46(44), 53(51), and 83(81) which teaches where the virtual assistant provides spoken language assistance to the user. See also Abstract and Par. 73(71), 78(76), 111(99), and 117(103) which teaches virtual assistant providing verbal outputs for responding to user requests e.g. “("turn right," "go straight")”).
However, Noce does not explicitly teach where the verbal output is synthesized or where it is in a voice of a video game character from the video game.
Khorshid teaches a virtual assistant for a video game where the virtual assistant output where the verbal output is synthesized (Par. 109-110) and where it is in a voice of a video game character from the video game. (Par. 140 “after the user enters into a particular space-adventure game, the XR assistant avatar may start talking like a particular space alien character of the game by transposing verb/noun order, or talking in an alien accent.”).
It would be desirable to modify the apparatus of Noce to include synthesized virtual assistant voice output in order to allow any generated responses to be output as a verbally by synthesizing the answer, and to provide the verbal output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by having the advice come from a familiar and appealing game character that the user likes rather than an impersonal generic voice. Relatedly this can increase the enjoyment of the user by matching the theme of the virtual assistant to the current game or activity being played.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the apparatus of Noce to modify the apparatus of Noce to include synthesized virtual assistant voice output and to include virtual assistant voice output in the voice of a video game character from the game as taught by Khorshid.
In Reference to Claim 26
Noce teaches wherein the one or more aspects of the video game comprise at least one of: (i) video game plotline, (ii) current game level, (iii) current lives remaining for the user, (iv) current inventory of items, (v) current points accumulated, and (vi) current location in the virtual world of the game (See Par. 54(52) where tracking game-items such as player ammunition constitutes “current inventory of items”, Par. 20(19) which teaches “current game level”, Par. 77(75) which teaches tracking “the location of the user's avatar or representation withing that game world” which constitutes “current location in the virtual world of the game”, and Par. 107(96) “a request for information regarding the timing or location of the appearance of game characters, places, or objects” where examiner considers information about the appearance of particular characters in the game to constitute “video game plotline.”).
In Reference to Claim 31
Noce teaches wherein the particular output data comprises a response related to a future game action for the player to perform in the video game to advance in the video game from a current point in the game (Par. 107(96) “The inquiry may be a game-related inquiry, such as a request for information regarding the timing or location of the appearance of game characters, places, or objects, or for how to perform a given action in the game. The inquiry may be a request for hints or recommendations (advice) for gameplay, such as how to overcome a particular large or small gameplay challenge.”).
In Reference to Claim 35
Noce teaches a microphone and where providing the synthesized, particular output comprises providing the particular output for playback by a speaker (Par. 73(71) “Example input devices include a camera and a microphone, and an example output device includes a speaker for providing verbal information or nonverbal sounds to the user.”).
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, further in view of Seixeiro et al., US 2018/0373398.
In Reference to Claim 21
Noce teaches where the one or more aspects of the video game comprise a monitoring and notification system for the virtual assistant (Par. 111-112 and 115-116 (99-102) which teaches a monitoring function for providing notifications or alerts based on gameplay such as ammunition remaining. See also Par. 116(102) which teaches monitoring functions outside of gameplay). However, Noce does not explicitly teach the a monitored functions which generate the functions comprise at least one of: (i) console notifications, (ii) controller battery, (iii) presence of online friends, and (iv) invitations from friends to play a different video game.
Seixeiro et al. teaches a natural language digital assistant which collects and provides system level notifications for various devices, which teaches where the aspect of the notification includes at least one of: (i) console notifications, (ii) controller battery, (iii) presence of online friends, and (iv) invitations from friends to play a different video game (Par. 3 which teaches a digital assistant collects notifications across system including game consoles to provide output. See also Par. 45 which teaches game console notifications. Examiner considers these “console notifications.” See also Par. 26 which teaches notifications can include device battery state. Where Noce teaches a game controller device, see Fig. 1-3).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to provide system level notifications from the game console using the virtual assistant as taught by Seixeiro et al. in order to save the player time and effort by consolidating and providing notifications to the user of events on their game console similar to monitoring outside of gameplay taught by Noce Par. 102.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to provide system level notifications from the game console using the virtual assistant as taught by Seixeiro et al.
In Reference to Claim 22
Noce, Khorshid and Seixeiro et al. teach absent of a request from a user, identifying, based at least on executing a model that is trained to identify output data related to different aspects of the video game for different given inputs, particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game for the input from the user; synthesizing the particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game in a voice of a character from the video game; and providing the synthesized particular output (Noce Fig. 10(10) and Par. 120-122(106-108) which teaches that rather than a request the virtual assistant receives gameplay data from a user and uses that data to determine feedback that “may” be sent to the user to improve their play. For example for “avoiding game actions that lead to undesired outcomes.” See Noce and Khorshid et al. as described above which teaches providing advice as synthesized voice output in a voice of a character from the video game as described above).
In Reference to Claim 23
Noce teaches wherein identifying, based at least on executing a model that is trained to identify output data related to different aspects of the video game for different given inputs, particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game for the input from the user comprises: analyzing, during execution of the model, input data that is accessible to the model; and determining the particular output data is relevant to the user (Fig. 10(10) and Par. 120-122(106-108) which teaches analyzing game data. See also Par. 29-30(27-28), 93(91) which teaches the trained model for the virtual assistant).
In Reference to Claim 24
Noce teaches wherein the input data comprises at least one of: (i) current battery charge level of the user controller, (ii) player profile data, (iii) game platform data, and (iv) game network data (Par. 120-122(106-108) where examiner considers learning the player’s playstyle and skill level to be player profile data. See also Par. 123(109) which teaches connecting to a network to gather play data from a network of digital assistants gathering play data from a plurality of players, which examiner considers “game network data.”).
In Reference to Claim 25
Noce teaches wherein the game network data is accessible through a game platform server (Par. 40(38) and 123(109).
14. Claims 27-29 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, further in view of Yazdian et al., US 2018/0018373.
In Reference to Claims 36-37
Noce and Khorshid teaches an apparatus where voice output is provided by a video game character as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, they do not explicitly teach where the video game character is the narrator of the video game or the character currently being played by the user as a part of the video game.
Yazdian et al. teaches a digital assistant with voice output where the output is customized to be the whichever character is the favorite of the user (Par. 60 which teaches where a user can specific a “favorite” fictional character and the voice of the digital assistant is presented in the voice of that fictional character. As such a player could choose the game character providing narration or the game character they are playing as their “favorite” character whereupon the video game character speaking via the virtual assistant would be the narrator or the currently played character).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant based on user preferences as taught by Yazdian et al. in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by letting the user pick their “favorite” character from game and have the digital assistant speak using that favored voice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant based on user preferences as taught by Yazdian et al.
Further, the type of character comprising the unique information (The game character being the narrator, or player character rather than some other game character) amounts only to nonfunctional descriptive material as claimed and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps of receiving an inputs, identifying an output based on a trained model, synthesizing a voice of a game character based on the output, and providing the synthesized output would be performed the same regardless of the type of character being a narrator character or the played character as claimed. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In Reference to Claims 27 and 28
Noce and Khorshid teach a method as described above in reference to Claim 1, including where voice output can be in the voice of a game character. However, they do not explicitly teach customizing the particular output data to one or more user preferences, or wherein the one or more preferences comprise one or more auditory preferences.
Yazdian et al. teaches a digital assistant with voice output where the output is customized to one or more user preferences, and where the one or more preferences comprise one or more auditory preferences. (Par. 60 which teaches where a user can specify a “favorite” fictional character and the voice of the digital assistant is presented in the voice of that fictional character).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant speaking style as taught by Yazdian et al. in order to increase the enjoyment of the user by letting the user pick their “favorite” character from game and have the digital assistant speak using that favored voice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include user customization of the digital assistant auditory preferences as taught by Yazdian et al.
In Reference to Claim 29
Noce as modified by Khorshid and Yazdian et al. teach determining one or more auditory preferences based on at least one of: (i) past user messages, and (ii) the player speed moving through menus of the game (Yazdian et al. Par. 49 which teach where the digital assistant actions are configured based on user preferences associated with a user profile. See also Par. 46 which teaches that for this profile the system can prompt users for “more information about the new user” and Par. 68 which teaches “user configured preferences.” Examiner considers the prior user inputs to the system to specify these preferences “past user messages” in the absence in the claims of any further detail about what constitutes a “message”.).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, in view of Khorshid, US 2024/0045704 and Dutilly et al., US 2010/0190555. In the interest of expediting prosecution, reference to Noce will be made to the figures and disclosure of the provisional application for Noce 63/666,872 dated 07/02/2024.
In Reference to Claim 30
Noce and Khorshid teach a method as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, Noce does not explicitly teach where the output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user has performed in the past, or a summary of one or more plot aspects related to the video game, the one or more plot aspects being related to parts of the video game that the user has already played.
Dutilly teaches a game system which gathers past player gameplay as inputs and teaches where output comprises a summary of one or more game actions that the user has performed in the past, as well as a summary of one or more plot aspects related to the video game, the one or more plot aspects being related to parts of the video game that the user has already played (Fig. 4, Abstract, Par. 45 and 52 which teach presenting a “recap” of the events of a players first gameplay session to the player at the beginning of their second gameplay session. See also Par. 34 which teaches where the recap can be provided via audio).
It would be desirable to modify the apparatus of Noce and Khorshid to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al. in order to provide information to refresh the player’s memory of where they were at in a game and what they were doing, such as if they take a break in a game, so that they are ready to continue their game play seamlessly with before. See Dutilly et al. Par. 6-8 and 17 which teaches where it is desirable to refresh a player’s memory with a game recap in this manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to include the game assistant providing a recap of game events in a prior session as taught by Dutilly et al.
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, further in view of Waldron et al., US 2014/0220541. In the interest of expediting prosecution, reference to Noce will be made to the figures and disclosure of the provisional application for Noce 63/666,872 dated 07/02/2024.
In Reference to Claim 32
Noce and Khorshid teach a method as described above in reference to Claim 1 including presenting an output related to one or more aspects of a computer game in response to a request. However, they do not teach pausing the execution of the video game in response.
Waldron et al. teaches a help system for a game where executing the video game comprises pausing the execution of the video game in response to a request for help (Par. 92 “the gaming module 210 may pause the game in response to the user pressing the help selection mechanism”).
It would be desirable to modify the apparatus of Noce and Khorshid to include pausing the execution of the video game in response to the player requesting help output as taught by Waldron et al. in order to allow the user to focus on understanding the tips or advice from the virtual assistant rather than having to split their attention between the game and the advice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the apparatus of Noce and Khorshid to include pausing the execution of the video game in response to the player requesting help output as taught by Waldron et al.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, further in view of Nesfield et al., US 2024/0292167. In the interest of expediting prosecution, reference to Noce will be made to the figures and disclosure of the provisional application for Noce 63/666,872 dated 07/02/2024.
In Reference to Claim 33
Noce and Khorshid teach receiving an input from a user that requests a second output related to one or more aspects of the video game; identifying, based at least on executing a model that is trained to identify output data related to different aspects of the video game for different given inputs, a second particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game for the input from the user; synthesizing the second particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game in a voice of a character from the video game; and providing the second synthesized, particular output (See above in reference to Claim 1 where Noce and Khorshid teach various different types of responses to various different user queries. For example Noce Par. 107-108 and 110(96-98). And Khorshid which teaches synthesizing an output in a voice of a video game character as described above).
However, they do not explicitly teach where the second output is requested in response to the system providing the first particular output.
Nesfield et al. teaches a virtual assistant where second output is requested in response to the system providing the first particular output (Par. 163 with teaches “multi-turn interactions” where when interacting with a voice assistant a user “may ask a voice assistant a question, receive a response, and ask a follow-up question or issue a related command.”).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce and Khorshid to allow follow-up requests in response to the assistant output to a first request as taught by Nesfield et al. in order to allow the user to receive better help or assistance they need by allowing player to ask additional questions to ask for clarification or additional help related to a first output if the first output wasn’t sufficient for the player to understand, or if the player requires additional information on a particular topic, or need to rephrase their query to get a different more useful response.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to allow follow-up requests in response to the assistant output to a first request as taught by Nesfield et al.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce, US 2026/0007955, Khorshid, US 2024/0045704, Nesfield et al., US 2024/0292167, further in view of Zimring et al., US 2019/0321732. In the interest of expediting prosecution, reference to Noce will be made to the figures and disclosure of the provisional application for Noce 63/666,872 dated 07/02/2024.
In Reference to Claim 34
Noce, Khorshid and Nesfield et al. teach a virtual assistant providing a second synthesized, particular output as described above in reference to Claim 33, and further Noce teaches where the method include responding to voice commands (Par. 22(21)) and where the virtual assistant can provide game commands (Par. 118(104) and 126(112)). However, they do not teach in response to an assistant output, unpausing execution of the game.
Zimring et al. teaches where, in response to an assistant output, unpausing execution of the game (Par. 210 where after the assistant execute a command based on a voice command, the user unpauses the game).
It would be desirable to modify the method of Noce, Khorshid, and Nesfield et al. to include unpausing the game in response to virtual assistant outputs as taught by Zimring et al. in order to allow the player to return to gameplay once they are finished paying attention to any output generated by the system such as tips and hints, by pressing a button to unpause the game.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method of Noce, Khorshid, and Nesfield et al. to include unpausing the game in response to virtual assistant outputs as taught by Zimring et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered. New grounds of rejection have been provided to better address the new scope of the amended and new claims. Regarding Noce, although Par. 95 and 106 of Noce, US 2026/0007955 do not have full support in the disclosure of provisional 63/666,872, examiner notes that Par. 71 and 98 of 63/666,872 which teaches that the virtual assistant is an artificial intelligence assistant for providing output and where the virtual assistant can draw on its training to provide output responding to user requests, provides partial support for the subject matter of Par. 95 of 2026/000795. Further Par. 95 and 106 were not solely relied on for teaching the limitations of the claims. Par. 93 of Noce, US 2026/0007955, which corresponds to support in Par. 91 of 63/666,872 along with the partial support of Par. 95 found in Par. 98 of 63/666,872 mentioned above, teaches “executing a model to identify data to present as the output”. Similarly, the Abstract, Par. 53-54, and Par. 107-108 of Noce, US 2026/0007955, which corresponds to support in the Abstract, Par. 51-52 and Par. 96-97 of 63/666,872 teach “while the video game is executing, receive input from a user, the input requesting an output related to one or more aspects of the video game.” As such rejection over Noce in view of Khorshid is still considered proper since the disclosure of 63/666,872 still provides support for the recited scope of the previous claim limitations. As such, given that the new grounds of rejection in this office action were necessitated by applicant’s amendments, this action will be made final.
In the interest of expediting prosecution, since the rejection amended claim 1 and the newly added claims still relies on the Noce reference the rejection has been rewritten to also reference to the paragraphs in the disclosure of the provisional application 63/666,872, dated July 2nd, 2024 which provide support for the cited paragraphs of US 2026/0007955. Such references to 63/666,872 are provided in italics above.
Finally, with regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, although applicant has not provided any arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically the new limitations of “identifying, based at least on executing a model that is trained to identify output data related to different aspects of the video game for different given inputs, particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game for the input from the user; synthesizing the particular output data that is related to the one or more aspects of the video game in a voice of a character from the video game;” in the examiner’s opinion recite additional elements which provide an improvement to technology, and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights