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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity and performing a mental process. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-13 recite: an event detection system, comprising: processing circuitry comprising one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
process positioning data for a portable device to identify an occurrence of an improper handling event for the portable device by a user;
update a user event profile for the user by adding the improper handling event to a quantity of improper handling events for the portable device by the user; and
in response to determining that the quantity of improper handling events for the portable device by the user meets or exceeds an event threshold, apply one or more restrictions for the user.
Claims 14-17 recite: an interactive system, comprising: a processing circuitry comprising one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
dynamically set an event threshold;
process respective data for a first portable device utilized during a respective first visit of a first user to a first interactive environment to identify an occurrence of a handling event for the first portable device by the first user;
update a user event profile for the first user by adding the handling event to a quantity of handling events by the first user; and
in response to determining that the quantity of handling events meets or exceeds the event threshold, apply one or more restrictions for the user or one or more enhancements for the user.
Claims 18-20 recite: a method of operating an event detection system, the method comprising:
processing, using one or more processors, positioning data for a portable device to identify an occurrence of an improper handling event for the portable device;
updating, using the one or more processors, an event profile by adding the improper handling event to a quantity of improper handling events for the portable device; and
applying, using the one or more processors, one or more restrictions in response to determining that the quantity of improper handling events for the portable device meets or exceeds an event threshold.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims recite steps of processing data and updating a user event profile to apply a restriction if a threshold quantity of improper handling events occur by the user. More specifically, the steps of restricting a user device or activity based on improper use of an item or improper conduct is a management of a social activity and therefore an organization of human activity.
In addition, the steps of processing position data, updating a user event, determining if a quantity of improper handing events meet or exceed a threshold and applying a restriction are mental steps that can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements “processing circuitry and memory” are cited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 recite a system comprising a processing circuitry and a memory storing instructions to performed the claimed steps. It is well known the art for a processing circuitry and a memory, or computer to process movement or position data of a user. Heubuel (US 2019/0201785) discloses that it is known in the art for a host computer to process game data including movement input of a user to process a game (paragraph 58).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-17, 19-20 further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea or mental process. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims also recite steps of implementing the restrictions virtually. The claims generally link the use of the judicial exception to a computer environment or virtual environment. The additional elements of “signal data” and “display an indication of the one or more restrictions” amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract.
The steps of communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Goergen (US 2020/0225715).
Claim 1. Goergen discloses an event detection system, comprising:
processing circuitry comprising one or more processors (Carried out by the controller 52 may be divided between the controller 52 and any other suitable controller; paragraph 31); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry (memory device; paragraph 32), cause the processing circuitry to:
process positioning data for a portable device (sensors may be a position sensor on a portable/wearable device; paragraphs 29, 46) to identify an occurrence of an improper handling event for the portable device by a user (Senor may provide signals indicative of the parameters to a controller (e.g., electronic controller), which may process the signals to determine whether the wearable visualization device has been improperly handled and may cause one or more actions in response to the determination that the wearable visualization device has been improperly handled; paragraph 19.);
update a user event profile for the user by adding the improper handling event to a quantity of improper handling events for the portable device by the user (controller may count a number of times that the wearable visualization device has been improperly handled; exceeded a threshold over time; paragraph 19); and
in response to determining that the quantity of improper handling events for the portable device by the user meets or exceeds an event threshold, apply one or more actions for the user (The controller may cause the one or more actions in response to the number of times that the wearable visualization device has been improperly handled exceeding a count threshold; paragraph 19. Processor may take one or more other actions such as sending a notification turn off the wearable device; features of the wearable device; block virtual features; paragraph 39.)
Claim 4. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: in response to identifying the occurrence of the improper handling event for the portable device by the user, instruct an output device of the portable device to provide an alert (output to illumination device, notification, speaker; paragraphs 38-39, 41, 45).
Claim 9. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: instruct a respective display of a user device of the user, a respective display of the portable device, or both, to display an indication of the user event profile for the user, the one or more restrictions, or both (output to illumination device, notification, speaker; paragraphs 38-39, 41, 45).
Claim 11. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1, wherein the portable device is configured to facilitate interactions with interactive elements in an interactive environment, and the portable device comprises a handheld targeting device, a wand, a toy, a figurine, an article of clothing, a wearable accessory, augmented reality (AR) glasses, virtual reality (VR) glasses, or any combination thereof (wearable AR/VR system, e.g. goggles, display , eyeglasses; paragraph 18).
Claim 18. Goergen discloses a method of operating an event detection system, the method comprising: processing, using one or more processors, positioning data for a portable device to identify an occurrence of an improper handling event for the portable device; updating, using the one or more processors, an event profile by adding the improper handling event to a quantity of improper handling events for the portable device; and applying, using the one or more processors, one or more restrictions in response to determining that the quantity of improper handling events for the portable device meets or exceeds an event threshold (see rejection for claim 1 above).
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 2-3, 5-8, 10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US 2020/0225715) as applied to claims 1, 18 above, and further in view of Lugo (US 2022/0174451).
Claim 2. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: set the event threshold based on a history of prior improper handling events by the user during prior visits to one or more interactive environments. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Goergen discloses the system count or log the event within the memory and for a period of time such as daily or weekly (paragraph 45-46). Therefore, it is implied that the event threshold is based on a history of prior improper handling events by the user during prior visits to one or more interactive environments in order to log the event weekly. Furthermore, in an analogous art to gaming systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses actions may be performed based on a determination that an undesirable parameter associated with the portable device by a user (paragraphs 35-37). Lugo discloses additional parameter include historical data associated with the attraction device (e.g. previous interaction ) and an aspect associated with a user profile (paragraph 41). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and set the event threshold based on a history of prior improper handling events by the user during prior visits to one or more interactive environments in order to provide a predictable result of providing a restriction based on a cumulative quantity of improper handling events over a period of time.
Claim 3. Goergen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that that the event threshold is based on a time of the day, a special occasion, or any combination thereof. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Goergen discloses that the system is for an amusement attraction or amusement park (paragraphs 18, 24, 36, 41-42). Amusement attractions or amusement parks operate various time of the day, and on various special occasion in which different features and rules vary. It is known in the art that that gaming establishments, amusement attractions or amusement parks operate various time of the day, and on various special occasion in which different features and rules may apply. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art with reasonable predictability to incorporate event threshold is based on a time of a day, a special occasion, or any combination thereof in order to accommodate the rules and features for different time of the day or special occasions. In addition, in an analogous art to gaming systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses that the undesirable parameter may be associated with a duration, a time intervale a threshold time, or block of time to guide the guest and navigate the guests. It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and set the event threshold based on a time of the day, a special occasion, or any combination thereof in order to provide the predictable result of guiding and navigating users to use the device according to the time of the day.
Claim 5. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 but fails to teach The one or more restrictions comprise decreasing operational features of the portable device. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to attraction systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses decreasing operational features (restricting or reducing operational features such as laser emitted, paragraphs 34). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate this restriction as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of encouraging users to operating the portable device properly.
Claim 6. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that the one or more restrictions comprise blocking the user from reaching achievements in an interactive environment. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to attraction systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses blocking user from receiving achievements of playing the game or achievement points, by reducing functionality or deducting points/game score; paragraphs 34, 35). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate this restriction as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of encouraging users to operating the portable device properly.
Claim 7. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that the portable device comprises a targeting device, and the one or more restrictions comprise reducing a quantity of virtual projectiles available to the portable device, changing a type of virtual projectiles available to the portable device, or both. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to attraction systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses reducing a quantity of virtual projectiles available by disabling operational features such as laser emitter (paragraph 34). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate this restriction as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of encouraging users to operating the portable device properly.
Claim 8. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach, wherein the one or more restrictions include blocking access to one or more queues for one or more interactive environments, increasing wait times for the one or more interactive environments, or both. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to attraction systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses blocking a pathway or environments. paragraphs 34-36). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate this restriction as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of encouraging users to operating the portable device properly.
Claim 10. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: link a user identifier received from a user device of the user with a device identifier received from the portable device; access a user profile that includes the user event profile for the user based on the user identifier received from the user device of the user; update the user event profile for the user to generate an updated user event profile for the user by adding the improper handling event to the quantity of improper handling events for the portable device by the user; and store the updated user event profile for the user in a database. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to attraction systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses linking a user identifier received from a suer device with the user (historical data associated with the user profile; paragraph 40); accessing a user profile and updating the user profile to generate an updated user event profile by adding the improper handlining event (parameter including historical data associated with the attraction device and user profile, paragraphs 40-41). As indicated above, Goergen discloses an accumulated number of improper handling event (counted number of times; paragraphs 19). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate this this as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of encouraging users to operating the portable device properly based on their historical usage.
Claim 19. Goergen in view of Lugo discloses the method of claim 18, comprising setting, using the one or more processors, the event threshold based on a history of prior improper handling events during prior visits to one or more interactive environments (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim 20. Goergen in view of Lugo discloses the method of claim 18, comprising applying, using the one or more processors, the one or more restrictions via decreasing operational features of the portable device, reducing a quantity of virtual projectiles available to the portable device, changing a type of virtual projectiles available to the portable device, or any combination thereof (see rejection for claim 7 above).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US 2020/0225715) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh (US 20220317782)
Claim 12. Goergen discloses the event detection system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach the positioning data comprises a signal generated by ultra-wideband (UWB) circuitry. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to interactive systems, Yeh discloses a portable device which communicates with an interactive environment using ultra-wideband (UWB) circuitry (Fig. 1, paragraphs 22, 26, 37) based on the position and orientation of the portable device (paragraphs 5-6, 37-42). Ultra-wideband Circuitry provides location accuracy, low power consumption, and fast transmission speed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate UWB circuitry in order to determine the position and orientation of the portable device within the interactive environment and to use a communication protocol that provides high accuracy, lower power consumption and fast transmission speed.
Claim 13. Goergen in view of Yeh discloses the event detection system of claim 12, comprising UWB readers in an interactive environment that are configured to read UWB tags in the portable device to generate the positioning data (see rejection above and Yeh paragraphs 5-6, 37-42).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US 2020/0225715) in view of Lugo (US 2022/0174451).
Claim 14. Goergen discloses an interactive system, comprising:
a processing circuitry comprising one or more processors (Carried out by the controller 52 may be divided between the controller 52 and any other suitable controller; paragraph 31); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry (memory device; paragraph 32), cause the processing circuitry to:
process respective data for a first portable device utilized during a respective first visit of a first user to a first interactive environment to identify an occurrence of a handling event for the first portable device by the first user (process sensor data for a portable/wearable device; paragraphs 29, 46);
update a user event profile for the first user by adding the handling event (controller may count a number of times that the wearable visualization device has been improperly handled; exceeded a threshold over time; paragraph 19) to a quantity of handling events by the first user (count to determine if it reaches a count threshold; paragraph 19); and
in response to determining that the quantity of handling events meets or exceeds the event threshold, apply one or more restrictions for the user or one or more enhancements for the user (The controller may cause the one or more actions in response to the number of times that the wearable visualization device has been improperly handled exceeding a count threshold; paragraph 19. Processor may take one or more other actions such as sending a notification turn off the wearable device; features of the wearable device; block virtual features; paragraph 39.)
Goergen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach dynamically setting an event threshold. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Goergen discloses that the system is for an amusement attraction or amusement park (paragraphs 18, 24, 36, 41-42). Amusement attractions or amusement parks operate various time of the day, and on various special occasion in which different features and rules vary. It is known in the art that that gaming establishments, amusement attractions or amusement parks offer different features throughout the day, and year, with different rules. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art with reasonable predictability to dynamically set the threshold in order to accommodate different features and rules for the attraction. Furthermore, in addition, in an analogous art to gaming systems, Lugo discloses an attraction system that detects improper handling of events within an attraction system (paragraphs 33-37). Lugo discloses that the undesirable parameter may be associated with a duration, a time intervale a threshold time, or block of time to guide the guest and navigate the guests. It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and dynamically set the event threshold in order to provide the predictable result of guiding and navigating users to use the device according to the time of the day or different events.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen (US 2020/0225715) in view of Lugo (US 2022/0174451) as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Yeh (US 2022/0317782).
Claim 15. Goergen in view of Lugo discloses the interactive system of claim 14 as discussed above but fails to teach that he instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: process respective data for a second portable device utilized during a respective second visit of the first user to the first interactive environment or to a second interactive environment to identify an occurrence of an additional handling event for the second portable device by the first user; update the user event profile for the first user by adding the additional handling event to the quantity of handling events by the first user; and in response to determining that the quantity of handling events meets or exceeds the event threshold, apply the one or more restrictions for the user or the one or more enhancements for the user. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to interactive systems, Yeh discloses a portable device (16 in Fig. 1) which communicates with an interactive environment based on the position and orientation of the portable device (paragraphs 5-6, 37-42). Yeh disclose a second portable device (77 in Fig. 1; paragraph 30). The additional portable device is used to communicate and interact within the interactive environment (paragraph 33). It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goergen’s invention and incorporate a second portable device in order to provide the predictable result of incorporating additional communication and interactive elements to the interactive element. When modifying Goergen’s invention, It would have been obvious to determining if the quantity of handling events meets or exceeds the event threshold and apply the one or more restrictions for the user or the one or more enhancements for the user according when incorporating a second portable device.
Claim 16. Goergen discloses the interactive system of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: compare the quantity of handling events to the event threshold on a per visit basis (actions based on the events daily; paragraph 46).
Claim 17. Goergen discloses the interactive system of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: set the event threshold to be specific to the first user (inherent since it may be based on history of event such as weekly, paragraph 46). In addition, Lugo discloses actions may be performed based on a determination that an undesirable parameter associated with the portable device by a user (paragraphs 35-37). Lugo discloses additional parameter include historical data associated with the attraction device (e.g. previous interaction ) and an aspect associated with a user profile (paragraph 41). Therefore, the event threshold is set specific to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights