DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3- 15, 17 and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11582307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same subject matter and recite similar limitations.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, claims 1, 17 and 20 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond to claims 1 and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11582307. See the table below.
Application No. 19/013,572
U.S. Patent No. 11582307
Claims 1, 17 and 20. A user device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and the at least one memory implementing, by the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory, a plurality of modules supporting an application configured to provide a computer implemented game, the plurality of modules being provided in the user device and comprising: a stream processing module; at least one game module; at least one game option module; and a prediction module,
wherein: at least one of the at least one game module is configured to generate one or more game events,
the stream processing module is configured to determine based on one or more of the one or more game events that the prediction module is to be triggered to make a prediction, said stream processing module sending a request for the prediction,
the prediction module is configured in response to the request for the prediction to provide the prediction based on one or more of the one or more game events to control one or more of the at least one game option module, and the stream processing module is configured to provide an output, based on the prediction, to trigger an action in the one or more of the at least one game option module, said action comprising controlling one or more options provided to a user in the computer implemented game.
Claims 1 and 20-22. A user device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and at least one memory implementing, by the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory, a plurality of modules supporting an application configured to provide a computer implemented game, the plurality of modules being provided in the user device and comprising: a stream processing module; a message distribution module for distributing events between modules; at least one game module; a game option module; and a prediction module, wherein: at least one game module is configured to generate one or more game events and provide the one or more game events to the message distribution module; the message distribution module is configured to provide one or more of the one or more game events to the stream processing module;
the stream processing module is configured to perform stream processing on the provided one or more events to provide a user state for the computer implemented game; at least one game module is configured to generate a game start event and provide the start event to the message distribution module which provides the game start event to the stream processing module, the stream processing module configured in response to the start event to determine if the prediction module is to be triggered to make a prediction;
the prediction module is configured, in response to the stream processing module determining that the prediction module is to be triggered, to process one or more stream processed events and provide a prediction output to the message distribution module; and
wherein, based on the prediction output the game option module selects a game related option which is displayed on a display of the user device.
Regarding claims 2-16 and 18-19, claims 2 and 18 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond to claims 1 and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11582307. Claims 3 and 19 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11582307. Claims 4-16 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond respectively to claims 3, 5-12, 14-15, 13 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11582307.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12231503. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same subject matter and recite similar limitations.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, claims 1, 17 and 20 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond to claims 1 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12231503. See the table below.
Application No. 19/013,572
U.S. Patent No. 12231503
Claims 1, 17 and 20. A user device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and the at least one memory implementing, by the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory, a plurality of modules supporting an application configured to provide a computer implemented game, the plurality of modules being provided in the user device and comprising: a stream processing module; at least one game module; at least one game option module; and a prediction module,
wherein: at least one of the at least one game module is configured to generate one or more game events,
the stream processing module is configured to determine based on one or more of the one or more game events that the prediction module is to be triggered to make a prediction, said stream processing module sending a request for the prediction,
the prediction module is configured in response to the request for the prediction to provide the prediction based on one or more of the one or more game events to control one or more of the at least one game option module, and the stream processing module is configured to provide an output, based on the prediction, to trigger an action in the one or more of the at least one game option module, said action comprising controlling one or more options provided to a user in the computer implemented game.
Claims 1 and 19-20. A user device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and at least one memory implementing, by the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory, a plurality of modules supporting an application configured to provide a computer implemented game, the plurality of modules being provided in the user device and comprising: a stream processing module; a message distribution module for distributing events between modules; at least one game module; at least one game option module; and a prediction module wherein: at least one of the at least one game module is configured to generate one or more game events and provide the one or more game events to the message distribution module; the message distribution module is configured to provide one or more of the one or more game events to the stream processing module;
the stream processing module is configured to determine based on the one or more game events received from the message distribution module that the prediction module is to be triggered to make a prediction, said stream processing module sending a request for the prediction to the message distribution module; the message distribution module is configured to send the request for the prediction to the prediction module;
the prediction module is configured in response to the request for the prediction to provide a prediction based on one or more of the game events and send the prediction to the message distribution module, to control one or more of the game option modules; the message distribution module is configured to send the prediction to the stream processing modules; and the stream processing module is configured to provide an output, based on the prediction to trigger an action in the one or more of the at least one game option module, said action comprising controlling one or more options provided to a user in the computer implemented game.
Regarding claims 2-16 and 18-19, claims 2 and 18 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12231503. Claims 3 and 19 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12231503. Claims 4-16 of Application No. 19/013,572 correspond respectively to claims 4, 6-16 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12231503.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gower et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0222730) in view of Krishnamurthy (U.S. Patent No. 10112113).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, Gower teaches A user device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and the at least one memory implementing, by the at least one processor executing instructions stored in the at least one memory, a plurality of modules supporting an application configured to provide a computer implemented game, the plurality of modules being provided in the user device and comprising: a stream processing module; at least one game module; at least one game option module; and a prediction module, (Gower, see figs. 3 and 9-13; see paragraph 0074 where a schematic diagram of a client 300, such as any of clients 130, 132, 136 of FIG. 1…; see fig. 3 input handler, event queue, synchronizer, predictor, renderer…; see abstract applications is described, for example, for networked games...client computers participating in the game)
wherein: at least one of the at least one game module is configured to generate one or more game events, (Gower, see figs. 3 and 9-11; see paragraph 0077 where client has an input handler 304 which receives input from one or more input devices via input 302...The input handler 304 transmits 306 input event data (in the form of event objects (generated game event))...places the event objects into client event queue 310 at the client...; see paragraph 0078 where client receives 330 synchronization packets from the server via network input 332. The synchronization packets are processed by a synchronizer 328 at the client using input from a client dictionary... synchronization packets comprise update commands and optionally also prediction metrics. The synchronizer updates the authoritative orchard 324 using the update commands and optionally using the node map 312 to carry out the synchronization. Where a node map 312 is used the synchronizer also updates the node map 312 on the basis of the update commands...)
the stream processing module is configured to determine based on one or more of the one or more game events that the prediction module is to be triggered to make a prediction, (Gower, see figs. 3 and 9-13; see paragraph 0092 where updates the client event queue, and the insertion delta 1002. To update the client event queue the synchronizer may remove (determine not to provide) any confirmed input events (events which have already been applied at the server - the remaining events are the "determined one or more events"; see paragraphs 0079-0080 where The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316...A renderer 318 at the client has access to the prediction orchard 316 and optionally to the client dictionary 334. The renderer 318 renders graphical and/or audio primitives from the prediction orchard 316 and sends its output to a graphics card 322...)
said stream processing module sending a request for the prediction, the prediction module is configured in response to the request for the prediction to provide the prediction based on one or more of the one or more game events to control one or more of the at least one game option module, and (Gower, see figs. 3 and 9-13; see paragraph 0092 where updates the client event queue, and the insertion delta 1002. To update the client event queue the synchronizer may remove (determine not to provide) any confirmed input events (events which have already been applied at the server - the remaining events are the "determined one or more events"; see paragraphs 0079-0080 where The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316...A renderer 318 at the client has access to the prediction orchard 316 and optionally to the client dictionary 334. The renderer 318 renders graphical and/or audio primitives from the prediction orchard 316 and sends its output to a graphics card 322...)
However, Gower does not explicitly teach the stream processing module is configured to provide an output, based on the prediction, to trigger an action in the one or more of the at least one game option module, said action comprising controlling one or more options provided to a user in the computer implemented game.
Krishnamurthy teaches the stream processing module is configured to provide an output, based on the prediction, to trigger an action in the one or more of the at least one game option module, said action comprising controlling one or more options provided to a user in the computer implemented game. (Krishnamurthy, see fig. 8; see col. 1, line 58-col. 2, line 7 where the computer system detects an interest of a video game player in assistance with interacting with a context of a video game...The potential actions and the predicted outcomes are derived based on automated analysis of a database of historical interactions with the context of other video game players of the determined experience level. In a further operation, the computer system causes a presentation about the selected action in the video game in response to detecting that the video game player needs the assistance...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Gower and Krishnamurthy to provide the technique of the stream processing module is configured to provide an output, based on the prediction, to trigger an action in the one or more of the at least one game option module, said action comprising controlling one or more options provided to a user in the computer implemented game of Krishnamurthy in the system of Gower in order to provide more adaptive game assistance and video games (Krishnamurthy, see col. 1, lines 22-34).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the stream processing module is configured to perform stream processing on one or more of the one or more game events to provide processed game events, the prediction module being configured to provide the prediction based on the processed game events. (Gower, see figs. 3 and 9-14; see also fig. 15; see paragraph 0077 where client has an input handler 304 which receives input from one or more input devices via input 302...The input handler 304 transmits 306 input event data (in the form of event objects (generated game event))...places the event objects into client event queue 310 at the client...; see paragraph 0078 where client receives 330 synchronization packets from the server via network input 332. The synchronization packets are processed by a synchronizer 328 at the client using input from a client dictionary... synchronization packets comprise update commands and optionally also prediction metrics. The synchronizer updates the authoritative orchard 324 using the update commands and optionally using the node map 312 to carry out the synchronization. Where a node map 312 is used the synchronizer also updates the node map 312 on the basis of the update commands...)
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the stream processing module is configured to determine dynamically which one or more of the one or more game events the stream processing module is to perform stream processing. (Gower, see figs. 3, 9-13 and 15; see paragraph 0092 where updates the client event queue, and the insertion delta 1002. To update the client event queue the synchronizer may remove (determine not to provide) any confirmed input events (events which have already been applied at the server - the remaining events are the "determined one or more events"; see paragraphs 0079-0080 where The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316...A renderer 318 at the client has access to the prediction orchard 316 and optionally to the client dictionary 334. The renderer 318 renders graphical and/or audio primitives from the prediction orchard 316 and sends its output to a graphics card 322...)
Regarding claim 4, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the plurality of modules further comprises an analytics module which is configured to receive one or more outputs of the stream processing module. (Gower, see figs. 3 and 9-13; see also fig. 15; see paragraph 0092 where updates the client event queue, and the insertion delta 1002. To update the client event queue the synchronizer may remove any confirmed input events (events which have already been applied at the server; see paragraphs 0079-0080 where The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316...A renderer 318 at the client has access to the prediction orchard 316 and optionally to the client dictionary 334. The renderer 318 renders graphical and/or audio primitives from the prediction orchard 316 and sends its output to a graphics card 322...)
Regarding claim 6, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the stream processing module is configured to determine that a series of a plurality of the one or more game events have occurred in a given order and in response thereto provide the output. (Gower, see figs. 3, 5-6 and 9; see paragraph 0090 where the apply time is set 906 to an insertion time…; see paragraph 0091 inserts 912 the event object into the event queue. It transmits 914 the event object to the server; see paragraphs 0079-0080 where The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316...A renderer 318 at the client has access to the prediction orchard 316 and optionally to the client dictionary 334. The renderer 318 renders graphical and/or audio primitives from the prediction orchard 316 and sends its output to a graphics card 322...)
Regarding claim 7, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the stream processing module is configured to run one or more scripts and to be updated by the one or more scripts received from a server. (Gower, see figs. 3, 5-6 and 9; see paragraph 0090 insertion time may be preconfigured, or may be dynamically calculated using prediction metrics received from the server…; see paragraphs 0079-0080 where The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316...A renderer 318 at the client has access to the prediction orchard 316 and optionally to the client dictionary 334. The renderer 318 renders graphical and/or audio primitives from the prediction orchard 316 and sends its output to a graphics card 322...)
Regarding claim 8, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein at least one module of the plurality of modules is configured to provide at least one first event which can only be used on the user device and at least one second event which can be provided to a server. (Gower, see figs. 3, 5-6 and 9; see paragraph 0091 The client input handler inserts 912 the event object into the event queue (can be used on user device). It transmits 914 the event object to the server (can be transmitted to server)…)
Regarding claim 9, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of modules is configured to receive the at least one first event which can be provided to the server and the at least one second event dependent on the at least one first event which can be provided to the server, and in dependence thereon to provide an output for transmitting to the server. (Gower, see figs. 5-6 and 9; see paragraph 0090-0091 insertion time may be preconfigured, or may be dynamically calculated using prediction metrics received from the server…The client input handler inserts 912 the event object into the event queue. It transmits 914 the event object to the server)
Regarding claim 10, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the plurality of modules further comprises a user state module, the user state module configured to store user related information about the user and provide user state related information about the user to the stream processing module. (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0049 receive user input (user related information); see paragraph 0066 where a client receives a user input event and generates an event object comprising an apply time being a time at which the event object is to be applied to the graph of connected nodes at the server...; see paragraph 0091 where inserts (stores) the event object into the event queue...)
Regarding claim 11, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the user state module is configured to synchronize data with a server. (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0056 where generate and send synchronization packets to the clients. Different synchronization packets may be sent to different clients. The synchronization packets comprise update commands generated from the graph of connected nodes at the server...)
Regarding claim 12, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the user state module is configured to be updated by the stream processing module. (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0056 where generate and send synchronization packets to the clients. Different synchronization packets may be sent to different clients. The synchronization packets comprise update commands generated from the graph of connected nodes at the server...; see paragraph 0076 where updated using events from an event queue 310 at the client. The node map comprises data about nodes in the authoritative orchard and enables the client to find nodes in the authoritative orchard to which a given update command applies in an efficient manner)
Regarding claim 13, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the prediction module provides one or more of a learning or training function. (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0079 where prediction is carried out at the client (which is optional) a predictor 314 is arranged to generate and update a prediction orchard 316 from a copy of the authoritative orchard 324. The predictor 314 may apply events from event queue 310 to the prediction orchard 316)
Regarding claim 14, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the prediction module provides one or more of an artificial intelligence function and a machine learning function. (Krishnamurthy, see figs. 6 and 8; see col. 3, lines 47-58 implements an artificial intelligence model to build the knowledge. For instance, the artificial intelligence model utilizes a number of neural networks. A neural network is trained based on interactions of video game players with one or more video games. In operations, features associated with a player playing a video game are mapped to an input layer of a trained neural network...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 17 and 20 is also applied to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches wherein the prediction module is configured to receive user related information about the user and at least one of the one or more game events. (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0049 receive user input; see paragraph 0066 where a client receives a user input event and generates an event object comprising an apply time being a time at which the event object is to be applied to the graph of connected nodes at the server...; see paragraph 0091 where inserts the event object into the event queue...; see paragraph 0092 where prediction metrics...; see figs. 11-14 and see paragraph 0095 where applying to the prediction orchard...)
Regarding claim 16, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches comprising a user interface configured to receive user input from the user, the user interface being controlled by one or more of the plurality of modules, (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0049 receive user input; see paragraph 0066 where a client receives a user input event and generates an event object comprising an apply time being a time at which the event object is to be applied to the graph of connected nodes at the server...; see paragraph 0091 where inserts the event object into the event queue...; see paragraph 0092 where prediction metrics...; see figs. 11-14 and see paragraph 0095 where applying to the prediction orchard...)
wherein in response to the user input received by the user interface, at least one module of the plurality of modules is configured to generate one or more events. (Gower, see figs. 1, 3 and 9; see paragraph 0049 receive user input; see paragraph 0066 where a client receives a user input event and generates an event object comprising an apply time being a time at which the event object is to be applied to the graph of connected nodes at the server...; see paragraph 0091 where inserts the event object into the event queue...; see paragraph 0092 where prediction metrics...; see figs. 11-14 and see paragraph 0095 where applying to the prediction orchard...)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gower-Krishnamurthy in view of Tan et al. (EP 2819015 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gower-Krishnamurthy teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Gower-Krishnamurthy does not explicitly teach wherein the stream processing module is configured to aggregate a plurality of the one or more game events over a window to provide an aggregated output, the stream processing module being configured to cause the aggregated output to be transmitted to a server.
Tan teaches wherein the stream processing module is configured to aggregate a plurality of the one or more game events over a window to provide an aggregated output, the stream processing module being configured to cause the aggregated output to be transmitted to a server. (Tan, see figs. 2, 4 and 5; see abstract where obtaining, by a terminal, multiple input events during running of application software; aggregating the multiple input events to obtain an aggregate event; and transmitting the aggregate event to the server...; see paragraphs 0006-0007 the aggregating, by the terminal, the multiple input events to obtain an aggregate event includes: aggregating, by the terminal, the input events in the event queue according to a set time period to obtain the aggregate event...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Gower-Krishnamurthy and Tan to provide the technique of wherein the stream processing module is configured to aggregate a plurality of the one or more game events over a window to provide an aggregated output, the stream processing module being configured to cause the aggregated output to be transmitted to a server of Tan in the system of Gower-Krishnamurthy in order to ensure that complete data is transmitted to the server and that the server can back up complete data (Tan, see abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPub 2019/0065960, which describes an automated companion personalized to a user that is implemented within an autonomous robot, and is also related to the building and implementation of the companion through artificial intelligence;
U.S. PGPub 2016/0379105, which describes signals representing local events and/or state are captured at a mobile device and utilized by a machine learning system to recognize patterns of user behaviors and make predictions to automatically launch an application, initiate within-application activities, or perform other actions; and
U.S. Patent No. 10945298, which describes a system, method, and computer program product for selecting a communication network to utilize based on knowledge and at least one artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights