Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at least paragraphs 83-84 which state in part, “wining.” This appears to be an incorrect spelling of the word ‘winning.’
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are replete with typos. The Office has attempted to note all of the grammatical errors and other errata below. Applicants are asked to also review the claim language to correct any additional errors which may not be expressly discussed below.
Claim 1, line 7 reads, “created deck, event identification.” There would appear to be a necessary use of the article “and” between the two claim elements.
Claim 1, line 8 reads, “is a real game media.” The term media here appears to be a plural term and as such the use of “a” herein appears improper grammatically.
Claim 2, lines 2-3 reads, “information the event.” It appears that the word ‘and’ should be inserted between information and the. As presented the language is improper grammatically.
Claim 6, line 2 reads, “wining.” This appears to be an improper spelling of ‘winning.’
Claim 7, line 3 reads, “by a predetermined date, by a predetermined date.” This appears to be an improper duplication.
Claim 7, line 4 reads, “wining.” This appears to be an improper spelling of ‘winning.’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user terminal” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first media" in line 8 and “the second media” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the multiple events" in line 2 and “the multiple game titles” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lottery" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the multiple events" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the selection available period" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the capacity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the registration unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the deck creation criterion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the deck creation criterion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "each game title" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the user terminal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the first media" in line 8 and “the second media” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the events" in line 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the first media" in line 9 and “the second media” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All remaining dependent claims inherent at least one of the above concerns and as such are incorporated into the rejection thereof.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “presentation control unit”, “deck creation control unit”, “registration control unit”, “notification control unit” in claims 1-24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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, 13-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirobe (US 20240249344).
With respect to claim 1, Hirobe discloses, an event management apparatus (fig. 4) comprising:
a presentation control unit (14 in fig. 4; para. 73; “the output device 14 is a device (a display, a speaker or the like) for presenting information to the user”) configured to present a plurality of first game media (digital cards displayed in fig. 18; para. 212) and a plurality of events using second game media (i.e. 1415 in fig. 19 discloses records of events, “battles”, which are completed using physical cards (see fig. 2)), which correspond to the first game media to the user terminal;
a deck creation control unit configured to create a deck including a first game medium selected from the presented first game media (para. 163-165; “the user uses the form displayed on the display 141 to select cards to construct a deck”); and
a registration control unit configured to register user identification information of a user (fig. 9 details registering user identification), the created deck (fig. 11 details registering deck information), event identification information of one event selected from among multiple events (fig. 12 details registering event information),
wherein the first media is virtual game media (digital cards shown in e.g figs. 18-19), and the second media is a real game media (fig. 2 details physical real game cards).
With respect to claim 2, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the registration control unit is configured to register the created deck so as to be associated with the user identification information (figs. 11-12 discloses that a user ID is associated with individual user-created decks) the event identification information of the selected event (fig. 12 discloses that battle/event ids are associated with the decks used at that battle/event).
With respect to claim 3, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the second game media corresponding to the first game media respectively are associated with the same characters as those corresponding to the first game media (para. 94, fig. 19 in 1414 details digital images of the real-world cards including the characters).
With respect to claim 4, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the registration control unit is configured to register an event identification information of one event selected from among the multiple events (fig. 12 details the selection of a battle type, i.e. tournaments; also see paras. 95-98) which are associated with one game title which is selected from the multiple game titles (Hirobe discloses multiple different battle types in paras 95-98; tournament play, CPU vs. player, PVP, each of these different battle types is seen as a different game title), so as to be associated with the user ID (fig. 12 details associating a user id with a specific event (i.e. tournament round)).
With respect to claim 13, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the registration unit is configured to register user information, and a game title can be registered as the user information (fig. 12 details registration of user ids as well as battle type (tournament and associated round, private battle)).
With respect to claim 15, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present the first game media in a first area (fig. 18 discloses presenting 20 virtual cards in an area 1412), and to present a first game medium selected from the presented first game media in a second area (fig. 19 details presenting a single virtual card, first game media, in a second area 1414).
With respect to claim 16, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the deck creation control unit is configured to create a deck based on the first game media presented on the second area (para. 163 details that the user constructs a deck from cards virtually stored).
With respect to claim 17, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present, in the first area, a first game medium corresponding to a second game medium which the user does not possess (para. 150 details display and purchase of cards that are available for the user to purchase which they do not currently possess).
With respect to claim 18, Hirobe does not expressly disclose, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the presentation control unit is configured to present a deck creation criterion (fig. 8 details a ‘completion’ criterion), and the deck creation control unit is configured to create a deck which does not meet the deck creation criterion (para. 123; and fig. 8 show that decks can be created prior to their ‘completion’).
With respect to claim 19, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the notification control unit is configured to notify that the deck does not meet the deck creation criterion (para. 170; the user selects decks to use in the battle; para. 123 details that decks are only available for battle after they are complete; the user would therefore be notified that a deck is not complete as it is not available for selection for battle), in the second area, when the deck does not meet the deck creation criterion is created (fig. 8 details a deck completion criterion).
With respect to claim 20, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the registration control unit is configured so that the deck which does not meet the deck creation criteria, cannot be registered so as to be associated with the selected one event (para. 123; “the completion of the deck means that the deck including a predetermined number of cards is available for a battle”).
With respect to claim 21, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein multiple characters are set for each game title (pars. 47-50 detail multiple characters), and the deck creation control unit is configured to create a deck including the same characters (fig. 7 details specific cards associated with different characters; similarly the deck storage in fig. 8 details deck creation including those same character cards).
With respect to claim 23, Hirobe discloses, an event management computer program, which causes one or more computers (fig. 4 details multiple computers) to function as,
a presentation control unit (14 in fig. 4; para. 73; “the output device 14 is a device (a display, a speaker or the like) for presenting information to the user”) configured to present first game media (digital cards displayed in fig. 18; para. 212) and events using second game media (i.e. 1415 in fig. 19 discloses records of events, “battles”, which are completed using physical cards (see fig. 2)), which correspond to the first game media to the user terminal (10 in fig. 4);
a deck creation control unit configured to create a deck including a first game medium selected from the presented first game media (para. 163-165; “the user uses the form displayed on the display 141 to select cards to construct a deck”); and
a registration control unit configure to register the created deck (figs. 8 and 11 details registration of a deck along with various information associated with the deck), and one event selected from the events (fig. 12 details registering various tournaments, battles etc. and their associated information), wherein the first media is virtual game media (digital cards shown in e.g figs. 18-19), and the second media is a real game media (fig. 2 details physical real game cards).
With respect to claim 24, Hirobe discloses, an event management system comprising:
a user terminal (10 in fig. 4) and an event management apparatus communicably connected to the user terminal (20 in fig. 4),
a presentation control unit (14 in fig. 4; para. 73; “the output device 14 is a device (a display, a speaker or the like) for presenting information to the user”) configured to present first game media (digital cards displayed in fig. 18; para. 212) and events using second game media (i.e. 1415 in fig. 19 discloses records of events, “battles”, which are completed using physical cards (see fig. 2)), which correspond to the first game media, to the user terminal;
a deck creation control unit configured to create a deck including a first game medium selected from the presented first game media (para. 163-165; “the user uses the form displayed on the display 141 to select cards to construct a deck”); and
a registration control unit configured to register the created deck, and one event selected from the events (figs. 8 and 11 details registration of a deck along with various information associated with the deck), wherein the first media is virtual game media (digital cards shown in e.g figs. 18-19), and the second media is a real game media (fig. 2 details physical real game cards).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5-6, 11-12, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe (US 20250249344) in view of Kitagawa (US 2022/0148387).
With respect to claim 5, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the registration control unit is configured to register event identification information of one event associated with one event date (fig. 12 discloses that date and time of the event is registered), based on a selection of the user (para. 169 details that the battle information may be input from the user).
Hirobe does not expressly disclose, that the user selects from among pieces of event identification information of multiple events associated with the same event name and a different event schedule.
Kitagawa discloses, a user selects from among pieces of event identification information (fig. 5 details event information for a plurality of events) of multiple events associated with the same event name (fig. 5 details 3 events with the same name “baccarat tournament”) and a different event schedule (fig. 5 details the different participation dates of the tournaments).
Kitagawa and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the user of Hirobe select amongst a multiple events as taught with Kitagawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
With respect to claim 6, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Hirobe does not expressly disclose, wherein the multiple events includes an event for which wining of lottery is required.
Kitagawa discloses an event for which winning of a lottery is required (para. 139 details random selection of participants for a consolation match; the random selection is seen as equivalent to a lottery).
Kitagawa and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the user of Hirobe select amongst a multiple events as taught with Kitagawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
With respect to claim 11, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Hirobe does not expressly disclose, wherein a selection available period and a capacity are set for each of the multiple events.
Kitagawa discloses, wherein a selection available period (S19 in fig. 7) and a capacity (S15 in fig. 7) are set for each of the multiple events.
Kitagawa and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have set availability periods and capacities as taught by Kitagawa for the events of Hirobe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
With respect to claim 12, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Hirobe does not expressly disclose, wherein the registration control unit is configured to select and register the event even after the selection available period set for the one event, when the number of users who select the one event is smaller than the capacity.
Kitagawa discloses, wherein the registration control unit is configured to select and register the event even after the selection available period set for the one event, when the number of users who select the one event is smaller than the capacity (fig. 7 does not require a maximum number of participants to be reached to allow for finishing pre-registration).
Kitagawa and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have set availability periods and capacities as taught by Kitagawa for the events of Hirobe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
With respect to claim 22, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Hirobe further discloses, wherein the registration control unit is configured to control a registration of an event hosting application submitted by an event organizer who wishes to hold an event (para. 170 details that the tournament organizer, event organizer, may provide various tournament information in advance, including the event date), and the event hosting application may include a game title available at the event (tournament, private battle etc. in fig.i 12), an event date (date and time in fig. 12).
Hirobe does not expressly disclose including event venue information.
Kitagawa discloses registering event venue information (“site A” in fig. 5).
Kitagawa and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have registered event venue location as taught by Kitagawa for the events of Hirobe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe (US 20250249344) in view Denker (US 20070055440).
With respect to claim 7, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above).
Hirobe does not expressly disclose a notification control unit.
Denker discloses, a notification control unit (fig. 7 illustrates a lottery winning notification; para. 132) configured to notify the user, wherein the notification control unit is configured to notify that the lottery is won (fig. 7), by a predetermined date, by a predetermined date (para. 91 details “date information regarding lottery is to be placed for online access by the public”), when the lottery is won in a state where the event for which the wining of the lottery is required, is selected (para. 38 details consideration of numerous state required mandates).
Denker and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the notification control unit taught by Denker in the tournament event management system of Hirobe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to meet governmental regulations (Denker; para. 6).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe (US 20250249344) in view Denker (US 20070055440) and further in view of Kitagawa (US 20220148387).
With respect to claim 8, Hirobe in view of Denker disclose, the event management apparatus according to claim 7 (see above).
Neither Hirobe nor Denker expressly disclose, wherein the predetermined date is a day before a date of the event for which the winning of the lottery is required.
Katagawa discloses notifying the users on a predetermined date that is a day before a date of the event for which the winning of the lottery is required (para. 79, fig. 8, lines s25-s26).
Kitagawa, Denker and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to notify users of Hirobe and Denker of their lottery win prior to the date of the event associated with the lottery as taught by Katagawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
With respect to claim 9, Hirobe in view of Denker disclose, the event management apparatus according to claim 7 (see above).
Denker disclose notifying losers of the lottery (para. 114; “optionally, at state 322, a notification is sent to losers”).
Neither Hirobe nor Denker expressly disclose, wherein the notification control unit is configured to notify that the user is placed on a waiting list when the lottery is lost.
Katagawa discloses a waiting list (S16 in fig. 7).
Kitagawa, Denker and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to establish a waiting list for the events of Hirobe and Denker as taught by Katagawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
With respect to claim 10, Hirobe in view of Denker disclose, the event management apparatus according to claim 7 (see above).
Denker disclose notifying winners of the lottery (fig. 7).
Neither Hirobe nor Denker expressly disclose, wherein the notification unit is configured to notify that the lottery is won, on condition that the user is notified that the user is on the waiting list and a cancellation occurs.
Katagawa discloses wherein the notification unit is configured to notify a user can participate, on condition that the user is notified that the user is on the waiting list and a cancellation occurs (S28-S29 in fig. 8; para. 84).
Kitagawa, Denker and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a user off the waiting list for the events of Hirobe and Denker as taught by Katagawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players (Kitagawa; para. 5).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe (US 20250249344) in view Gillo (US 2011/0269540).
With respect to claim 14, Hirobe discloses, the event management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the registration control unit is configured to register user information (fig. 12, for example, details registration of user ids).
Hirobe discloses registering numerous elements of user information including name, age, address, and date of birth, but is silent as to recording a language of a game title can be registered as the user information.
Gillo discloses registering a users’ preferred game title language (para. 136).
Gillo and Hirobe are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely event management.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have registered a user language as taught by Gillo for the events of Hirobe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide more effective encouragement of participation by players.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights