DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-5 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The instant application has a filing date of February 10, 2025. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. The instant application is a national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT International Application No. 2023/027241 (JP), filed on July 25, 2023, and claims for the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application number 2022-129123 (JP). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 10, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-5 is/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.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 4 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1-3 is/are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 5 is/are drawn to a game apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-5 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 4 and 5) recites/describes the following steps;
processing of giving a reward to a player based on a first predetermined task being executed within a predetermined time period, the first predetermined task being a task related to a piece of content preset among a plurality of pieces of content provided;
processing of limiting the number of times a second predetermined task is executable within the predetermined time period, the second predetermined task being a task related to a piece of content preset among the plurality of pieces of content provided;
processing of setting any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task as a notification target, based on a player operation; and
processing of displaying a list…displaying the any of the plurality of predetermined tasks set as the notification target
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for rewarding game players for tasks and enabling a user to set a notification/reminder for a task, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 4 and 5 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute” (claim 1);
“executed by one or more computers” (claim 4);
“a game apparatus comprising; one or more computers, wherein the one or more computers execute” (claim 5)
“a list display screen” (claims 1, 4, and 5)
“wherein the program further causing the computer to execute processing of” (claims 2 and 3)
“displaying an execution screen…on the displayed list display screen” (claim 2)
“the displayed list display screen” (claim 3)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute” (claim 1) or “executed by one or more computers” (claim 4) or “a game apparatus comprising; one or more computers, wherein the one or more computers execute” (claim 5) and/or “wherein the program further causing the computer to execute processing of” (claims 2 and 3) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the published specification at paragraphs [0264]-[0271). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “a list display screen” (claims 1, 4, and 5) and/or “displaying an execution screen…on the displayed list display screen” (claim 2) and/or “the displayed list display screen” (claim 3) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing/gaming environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. It also serves merely to limit the type of gaming to electronic gaming. This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help players remember their daily tasks, which increases player satisfaction/convenience (see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0203] & [0263]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for rewarding game players for tasks and enabling a user to set a notification/reminder for a task).
With respect to the dependent claims - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute” (claim 1) or “executed by one or more computers” (claim 4) or “a game apparatus comprising; one or more computers, wherein the one or more computers execute” (claim 5) and/or “wherein the program further causing the computer to execute processing of” (claims 2 and 3) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “a list display screen” (claims 1, 4, and 5) and/or “displaying an execution screen…on the displayed list display screen” (claim 2) and/or “the displayed list display screen” (claim 3) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
With respect to the dependent claims - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
v Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawaguchi et al. (WO 2021059874 A1 April 1, 2021 - hereinafter "Hawaguchi”) in view of Hansson et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0235338, August 21, 2014 - hereinafter "Hansson”)
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 5, Hawaguchi teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute (claim 1); an information processing method executed by one or more computers (claim 4); and a game apparatus (claim 5) comprising;
one or more computers, wherein the one or more computers execute: (claim 5) (“FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing a schematic configuration of an information processing system S. The information processing system S is a so-called client-server system including a player terminal 1, a server 100, and a communication network 200 having a communication base station 200a. The player terminal (information processing device) 1 can establish communication with the server 100 via the communication network 200. The player terminal 1 includes a wide range of electronic devices capable of wirelessly or wired communication connection with the server 100. Examples of the player terminal 1 include smartphones, mobile phones, tablet devices, personal computers, game machines, and the like. In the present embodiment, a case where a smartphone is used as the player terminal 1 will be described. The server 100 is communicated with a plurality of player terminals 1. The server 100 stores various types of information (player information) for each player ID for identifying a player who plays a game.”
processing of giving a reward to a player based on a first predetermined task being executed within a predetermined time period, the first predetermined task being a task related to a piece of content preset among a plurality of pieces of content provided; (“In the example of FIG. 5A, three stars are acquired in the battle game of "21-1", two stars are acquired in the battle game of "21-2", and two stars are acquired in the battle game of "21-3". Has been acquired. Further, in the battle game of "21-4", no star has been acquired, and it is notified that this battle game has not been cleared…. the quest selection screen shown in FIG. 5B is displayed on the display 26. On the quest selection screen, enemy characters appearing in the battle game and items (rewards) that can be obtained in the battle game are displayed. In addition, the quest selection screen displays the stamina before and after the battle game is executed and the number of remaining challenges. The number of remaining challenges indicates the number of times that can be challenged in one day…In the battle game, the purpose is for the friendly characters organized in the party to defeat (clear) the enemy characters and earn rewards.”, see also “If one battle game is challenged three times, the number of remaining challenges on that day will be 0 (0/3). However, by consuming the second currency only once a day, it is possible to recover the remaining number of challenges to three. In other words, you can challenge one of the hard quest battle games up to 6 times a day”…see also “the contents of the items are replaced or made available for purchase again at predetermined intervals (for example, twice a day).”
processing of limiting the number of times a second predetermined task is executable within the predetermined time period, the second predetermined task being a task related to a piece of content preset among the plurality of pieces of content provided; (“If one battle game is challenged three times, the number of remaining challenges on that day will be 0 (0/3). However, by consuming the second currency only once a day, it is possible to recover the remaining number of challenges to three. In other words, you can challenge one of the hard quest battle games up to 6 times a day. Further, in the present embodiment, the stamina consumed in the hard quest battle game is set to 20. However, the stamina consumed in the hard quest battle game may be different for each battle game, or may be set to 10, which is the same as the normal quest Also, if you clear the hard quest battle game, you can get items to raise the stars of your ally characters. On the other hand, even if you clear the battle game of the normal quest, you cannot get the item to raise the star of the ally character”
processing of displaying a list display screen displaying the any of the plurality of predetermined tasks set (“The quest screen is provided with a normal quest selection operation unit 41a for selecting a normal quest and a hard quest selection operation unit 41b for selecting a hard quest. On the quest screen, either the normal quest selection operation unit 41a or the hard quest selection operation unit 41b is always selected, and the normal quest selection operation unit 41a is selected as the initial state. On the quest screen, when the normal quest selection operation unit 41a is selected, the quest operation unit 42 for selecting one of a plurality of battle games (hierarchies) belonging to the normal quest is displayed. Further, on the quest screen, a quest list operation unit 43 for skipping one or a plurality of battle games at once is displayed. The transition of the screen when the quest list operation unit 43 is operated (tapped) and its processing will be described in detail later”, see also “In the quest list pop-up 54, a check cannot be input in the check input field 54j of the battle game in which the remaining number of challenges has already been recovered once and the number of remaining challenges is 0.”
Hawaguchi does not appear to disclose,
processing of setting any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task as a notification target, based on a player operation; and
processing of displaying a list display screen displaying the any of the plurality of predetermined tasks set as the notification target
However, Hansson discloses
processing of setting any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task as a notification target, based on a player operation; and ([0353] “Mystery Quests can be a way for players to earn boosters in the game without having to purchase them. It is also possible that Mystery Quests are only available at certain times, such as between 9 PM and 10 PM each day or on specific days.” – daily in-game task, [0315] “The game can have schemes for giving rewards and bonuses to players. One reason for giving out rewards is to increase player engagement, and to some extent to help with monetisation. Players can for instance be rewarded for playing multiple days in a row, something that awards persistence and dedication. In other implementations, there is a daily bonus available that is gained by every player playing the game online during that day, or to players passing a certain secret location during that day. By giving players samples of existing boosters, they are given a free preview of purchasable items that potentially can lead to sales in the long run, which helps monetise the game.” – other second daily tasks, [0368]-[0380] “Players can choose to be notified of certain events in a game. The notifications may be both `pushed` as well as only available once a player logs into the game. Notifications can be sent on both stationary computers and mobile devices, depending on the player's platform of choice…Typically the player can configure in which way push notifications should be received from a range of available options…the player can choose which events to be notified about. In some implementations, the player can be choose to be notified when a new Mystery Quest is available, or when the player has full lives. In other implementations, the player can choose to be notified regarding a variety of different events, such as the following…When new levels have been added to the game… [0380] When they have not played for a certain period of time.” - setting a predetermined task of any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task notification target based on player operation)
processing of displaying a list display screen displaying the any of the plurality of predetermined tasks set as the notification target ([0368]-[0380] “Players can choose to be notified of certain events in a game. The notifications may be both `pushed` as well as only available once a player logs into the game. Notifications can be sent on both stationary computers and mobile devices, depending on the player's platform of choice…Typically the player can configure in which way push notifications should be received from a range of available options…the player can choose which events to be notified about. In some implementations, the player can be choose to be notified when a new Mystery Quest is available, or when the player has full lives. In other implementations, the player can choose to be notified regarding a variety of different events, such as the following…When new levels have been added to the game… [0380] When they have not played for a certain period of time.” - setting a predetermined task of any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task notification target based on player operation)
Hansson suggests it is advantageous to processing of setting any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task as a notification target, based on a player operation; and processing of displaying a list display screen displaying the any of the plurality of predetermined tasks set as the notification target, because doing so can increase convenience and satisfaction by enabling the person to set a reminder of tasks that need to be completed ([0368]-[0380]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium, method, and apparatus of Hawaguchi to include processing of setting any of a plurality of predetermined tasks including the first predetermined task and the second predetermined task as a notification target, based on a player operation; and processing of displaying a list display screen displaying the any of the plurality of predetermined tasks set as the notification target, as taught by Hansson, because doing so can increase convenience and satisfaction by enabling the person to set a reminder of tasks that need to be completed.
With respect to claim 2, Hawaguchi teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1;
wherein the program further causing the computer to execute processing of displaying an execution screen for executing a predetermined task of the plurality of predetermined tasks, based on a player operation on the displayed list display screen (“The quest screen is provided with a normal quest selection operation unit 41a for selecting a normal quest and a hard quest selection operation unit 41b for selecting a hard quest. On the quest screen, either the normal quest selection operation unit 41a or the hard quest selection operation unit 41b is always selected, and the normal quest selection operation unit 41a is selected as the initial state. On the quest screen, when the normal quest selection operation unit 41a is selected, the quest operation unit 42 for selecting one of a plurality of battle games (hierarchies) belonging to the normal quest is displayed. Further, on the quest screen, a quest list operation unit 43 for skipping one or a plurality of battle games at once is displayed. The transition of the screen when the quest list operation unit 43 is operated (tapped) and its processing will be described in detail later”, “Further, in the quest list pop-up 54, the ticket number display field 54e, the minus operation unit 54f, the plus operation unit 54g, the cancel operation unit 39, and the batch skip operation unit 54h are displayed. Further, in the quest list pop-up 54, a tab name display field 54i is displayed on the right side of the display switching operation unit 54c. Although detailed description is omitted, when the tab name display field 54i is operated, any one of the tab names can be selected from the plurality of tab names.”, “After that, for example, when the batch skip operation unit 54h is operated (tapped) while the quest list pop-up 54 shown in FIG. 11A is displayed, the hard quest "21-2" battle game is played twice and the normal quest is performed. The battle game of "21-1" is treated as having been cleared twice, and the skip result pop-up 55 shown in FIG. 11C is displayed on the display 26. In the skip result pop-up 55, the items acquired in the hard quest "21-2" battle game twice and the normal quest "21-1" battle game twice are displayed together. The process of collectively skipping a plurality of battle games in this way is called a batch skip process.”)
With respect to claim 3, Hawaguchi teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 2;
wherein the program further causing the computer to execute processing of omitting display of the execution screen and collectively executing the plurality of predetermined tasks, based on a player operation on the displayed list display screen (“After that, for example, when the batch skip operation unit 54h is operated (tapped) while the quest list pop-up 54 shown in FIG. 11A is displayed, the hard quest "21-2" battle game is played twice and the normal quest is performed. The battle game of "21-1" is treated as having been cleared twice, and the skip result pop-up 55 shown in FIG. 11C is displayed on the display 26. In the skip result pop-up 55, the items acquired in the hard quest "21-2" battle game twice and the normal quest "21-1" battle game twice are displayed together. The process of collectively skipping a plurality of battle games in this way is called a batch skip process.”, see also “FIG. 15A is a diagram illustrating an example of the limited shop appearance pop-up 60. FIG. 15B is a diagram illustrating an example of the reset confirmation pop-up 61. Even when the batch skip process is performed, the server 100 draws a lottery as to whether or not a limited shop will appear. Here, when the batch skip process is performed, it is treated as having cleared the battle game a plurality of times. Therefore, the server 100 draws lots for whether or not to make the limited shop appear for that number of times. For example, when batch skip processing is performed for 30 battle games, the server 100 draws a lottery for whether or not to make a limited shop appear up to 30 times. Specifically, when the server 100 wins the lottery until the number of times the limited shop is opened reaches 5 times (upper limit value), the server 100 refers to the limited shop lottery table shown in FIG. 9 and starts from the winning probability of 10% again. Lottery will be done in order. Then, when the number of times of opening reaches 5 times, the server 100 does not perform the lottery after that. Even if a plurality of tickets are consumed on the quest details screen shown in FIGS. 5B and 7B to clear the battle game, as in the case of the batch skip process, until the number of times of opening reaches 5 times. , You may draw a lottery whether or not to make a limited shop appear.”, “Then, simply by inputting a check in the check input field 54j of the battle game to be skipped and selecting the number of times the battle game is executed, the selected number of times of execution can be skipped at once for the checked one or more battle games. it can. This makes it easy to collect items and saves the player time and effort.”)
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Zhou (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0280507, September 18, 2014) teaches in-game daily tasks that can be completed for rewards
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights