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 .
Priority
Applicant claims 35 U.S.C. § 119 priority to Korean Patent Application Nos. 10-2023-0123132, filed on September 15, 2023, and 10-2023-0180095, filed on December 12, 2023, in the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 9/13/2024, 6/9/2025, and 8/20/2025 have been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 9/13/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-25 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claims 23 and 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In the instant case, claim 12 is directed to a “game providing apparatus” while claims 23 and 24 are directed to “a server” and “a user terminal,” respectively. In view of paragraph [0057] reciting “a game providing apparatus may include a game server, a user terminal, a game system including the game server and the user terminal, or an independent device”, the limitations “game providing apparatus,” “a server,” and “a user terminal”, as currently recited the limitations are so close in content that they cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording (see also Figs. 1, 14-16; paragraphs [0067]-[0079], [0234]-[0284]).
Claims 5, 11, 16, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “at any time point when the imminent auction end time point for the game item has passed” in lines 2-3 and should recite “at any time point when an imminent auction end time point for the game item has passed.”
Claim 11 recites “when the imminent auction end time point for the game item has not passed” in lines 2-3 and should recite “when an imminent auction end time point for the game item has not passed.”
Claims 16 and 22 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 5 and 11, such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 16 and 22 are objected under at least similar rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-11, are directed to a process, the system, as claimed in claims 12-24, are directed to a machine, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claim 25, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
obtaining auction information associated with an auction for a game item, the auction information including auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtaining an auction end time range indicating a time range in which the auction ends based on the auction time information; and
determining an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because determining an auction end time based on auction information and an auction end time range is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 12, 23, 24, and 25 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 12, 23, 24, and 25 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method of providing a game service by a game providing apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining auction information associated with an auction for a game item, the auction information including auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtaining an auction end time range indicating a time range in which the auction ends based on the auction time information; and
determining an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range.
In this case, claim 12 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A game providing apparatus comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range in which the auction ends based on the auction time information; and
determine an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range.
In this case, claim 23 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range in which the auction ends based on the auction time information; and
determine an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range.
In this case, claim 24 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A user terminal comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range in which the auction ends based on the auction time information; and
determine an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range.
In this case, claim 25 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising a program for executing on a computer the method of providing the game service according to claim 1.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“by a game providing apparatus”, “game providing apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a server comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a user terminal comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising a program for executing on a computer”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (obtaining information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1, 14-16; paragraphs [0067]-[0079], [0234]-[0284]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited obtaining steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-22
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-22 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 12 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 12.
Claims 2-11 and 13-22 set forth:
wherein the auction time information comprises at least one of an auction duration for the game item, an auction start time point for the game item, an auction end time range for the game item, and an auction end time point for the game item.
wherein the game item comprises a nickname of a character.
further comprising: identifying whether a condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied, and determining the sale registration of the game item based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied.
further comprising providing information that the auction for the game item may end at any time point when the imminent auction end time point for the game item has passed.
further comprising providing information that the game item cannot be registered for sale based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is not satisfied.
wherein the auction information comprises at least one of a name of the game item, a type of the game item, a number of game items, a minimum bid, and a maximum bid.
wherein the condition for registering the game item for sale comprises at least one of whether a limit on the number of auctions within a certain period granted to each user is exceeded, whether a user holds goods exceeding a sale registration deposit, and whether the game item is a tradable item or an auctionable item.
wherein the auction information comprises a nickname to be used by a character after registering the nickname for sale.
wherein the game item is searchable by using at least one of a language, a number of characters, and a sale price range.
further comprising providing information about a remaining time of the auction for the game item when the imminent auction end time point for the game item has not passed.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining an auction end time based on auction information and an auction end time range. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 12, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 2-11 and 13-22.
Thus, dependent 2-11 and 13-22 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 12-15, 17-20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhunjishaw et al. (US 2006/0234795 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dhunjishaw et al., hereinafter Dhunjishaw, discloses a method of providing a game service by a game providing apparatus (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining auction information associated with an auction for a game item, the auction information including auction time information associated with a time of the auction (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0039, and ¶0042);
obtaining an auction end time range indicating a time range in which the auction ends based on the auction time information (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0039, ¶0042; Examiner notes the start of the auction/opening time to the end of the auction (either by instant purchase price, auction time limit, or the extension of the auction time limit is comparable to an auction end time range); and
determining an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0015-0017, ¶¶0042-0044; Examiner notes closing the auction is comparable to determining an auction end time point).
Regarding claim 2, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the auction time information comprises at least one of an auction duration for the game item, an auction start time point for the game item, an auction end time range for the game item, and an auction end time point for the game item (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0015-0017, ¶0042).
Regarding claim 3, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the game item comprises a nickname of a character (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0028 [game items include abstract items, such as memberships, levels of membership, titles, or names]; Examiner notes names is comparable to a nickname).
Regarding claim 4, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying whether a condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0038 [The seller selects a game item to auction through the seller's computer system, block 3010, and requests an auction for the selected game item, block 3020. The game server selects the indicated item and confirms that the game item is associated with the seller's game account. The game server does not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller's game account and rejects such requests.]), and
determining the sale registration of the game item based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0038-0039 [After confirming the auction request, the game server negotiates auction parameters with the seller, block 3030. The auction parameters indicate how the auction is to be performed, such as auction form, starting price, reserve price, time limit, etc. Once the seller confirms the auction parameters, the game server provides the auction parameters to the auction server and the auction server begins setting up the auction, block 3040.]).
Regarding claim 6, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising providing information that the game item cannot be registered for sale based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is not satisfied (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0038 [The seller selects a game item to auction through the seller's computer system, block 3010, and requests an auction for the selected game item, block 3020. The game server selects the indicated item and confirms that the game item is associated with the seller's game account. The game server does not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller's game account and rejects such requests.]).
Regarding claim 7, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the auction information comprises at least one of a name of the game item, a type of the game item, a number of game items, a minimum bid, and a maximum bid (Figs. 1-3A; Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0015-0016, ¶¶0038-0043).
Regarding claim 8, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the condition for registering the game item for sale comprises at least one of whether a limit on the number of auctions within a certain period granted to each user is exceeded, whether a user holds goods exceeding a sale registration deposit, and whether the game item is a tradable item or an auctionable item (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0028-0029, ¶0038 [The seller selects a game item to auction through the seller's computer system, block 3010, and requests an auction for the selected game item, block 3020. The game server selects the indicated item and confirms that the game item is associated with the seller's game account. The game server does not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller's game account and rejects such requests.]; Examiner notes a game item that a seller is not associated with is not auctionable (or tradable)).
Regarding claim 9, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the auction information comprises a nickname to be used by a character after registering the nickname for sale (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0028 [game items include abstract items, such as memberships, levels of membership, titles, or names]; Examiner notes names is comparable to a nickname).
Regarding claims 12, 23, 24, and 25, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claims 12, 23, and 24 are directed to a machine and claim 25 is directed to an article of manufacture while claim 1 is directed to a process. The added elements of “a game providing apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a server comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a user terminal comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising a program for executing on a computer” are also disclosed by Dhunjishaw (see Figs. 1-3A; ¶0014, ¶¶0021-0036, ¶¶0051-0052). Therefore, claims 12, 23, 24, and 25 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art.
Regarding claims 13-15 and 17-20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 2-4 and 6-9, except claims 2-4 and 6-9 are directed to processes, while claims 13-15 and 17-20 are directed to a machines. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 2-4 and 6-9, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 2-4 and 6-9.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhunjishaw in view of Murray (US 2015/0006312 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 1. While Dhunjishaw further discloses the game item may end at any time point (¶0042), Dhunjishaw does not explicitly disclose further comprising providing information that the auction for the game item may end at any time point when an imminent auction end time point for the game item has passed. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Murray teaches in paragraph [0033] monitoring an online auction to determine whether one or more of the end conditions are met and provide an alert to the members that satisfaction of an end condition is imminent (e.g., the auction will end soon). For example, an end condition may specify that when a given bid is received and no subsequent bid is received within a predetermined time period, the auction will terminate and the given bid will be deemed the winning bid (¶0033). The step of Murray is applicable to the method of Dhunjishaw as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online auctions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the extension of the auction time limit when bids are received near the end of the time limit as taught by Dhunjishaw with the providing the information that the auction may end at any point when an imminent auction end time point has passed as taught by Murray. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Dhunjishaw in order to provide an alert to the members that satisfaction of an end condition is imminent (e.g., the auction will end soon) and that the auction will end at the predetermined time unless a subsequent bid is received (Murray ¶0033).
Regarding claim 11, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 1. While Dhunjishaw further discloses providing information about the auction for the game item when the end time point for the game item has not passed (¶0017, ¶¶0042-0045), Dhunjishaw does not explicitly disclose further comprising providing information about a remaining time of the auction for the game item when an imminent auction end time point for the game item has not passed. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Murray teaches in paragraph [0031] a bid management module that may be configured to display information related to the member that submitted the best bid, a time left for bidding, and a time left for the auction. The step of Murray is applicable to the method of Dhunjishaw as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online auctions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the provided information as taught by Dhunjishaw with the information related to a time left for bidding and a time left for the auction as taught by Murray. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Dhunjishaw in order to facilitate communication during the auction, and/or otherwise manage bidding in the auction (Murray ¶0031).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 5 and 11, except claims 5 and 11 are directed to processes, while claims 16 and 22 are directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 5 and 11, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 16 and 22 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 5 and 11.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhunjishaw in view of Somaiya et al. (US 2016/0048897 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dhunjishaw discloses the method of claim 3. While Dhunjishaw further discloses wherein the game item is searchable (¶0017 [When the auction begins, the auction system initiates an auction process allowing users logged into the system to place and review bids for the item. Users of the auction system can log in and browse or search through items placed up for auction.]), Dhunjishaw does not explicitly disclose the game item is searchable by using at least one of a language, a number of characters, and a sale price range. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Somaiya et al., hereinafter Somaiya, teaches enabling a user to provide a search query to search listings in an auction using a text entry box and to display results along with popular price ranges for the one or more items enabling a user to additionally search by a sale price range (Figs. 6-11C; ¶¶0086-0106). The step of Somaiya is applicable to the method of Dhunjishaw as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online auctions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the searchable items placed up for auction as taught by Dhunjishaw with the text based searching and sale price range searching as taught by Somaiya. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Dhunjishaw in order to provide to the user popular price ranges for one or more items based on one or more received search queries (Somaiya ¶0017).
Regarding claim 21, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 10, except claim 10 is directed to processes, while claim 21 is directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10, and does not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “Diablo 3 will let players buy and sell items for real money” discloses an auction house that allows players of the video game to buy and sell in-game items for real money.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688