Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 9, line 3, “a dependency graph” should read as “the dependency graph”.
Claim 9, line 4, “a checksum identifier” should read as “the checksum identifier”.
Claim 19, line 3, “a dependency graph” should read as “the dependency graph”.
Claim 19, lines 4-5, “a checksum identifier” should read as “the checksum identifier”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will
not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale
supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication,
or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated under US 20200310783 A1 (“Schmidt”).
In regard to claim 1, Schmidt discloses
A computer-implemented method comprising ([0115], “the methods may be embodied in …computer hardware”): executing a video game application based on ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”) a binary including a first compiled program code and a second compiled program code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”);
receiving, while the video game application executes, a program code patch that includes a third compiled program code to replace the first or second compiled program code or to be added to the binary ([0024], “Embodiments of the disclosed technology utilize … interpreted script logic to facilitate rapid distribution of updates … scripted logic can be rapidly distributed to the user's computing device … during runtime of the application, the application can detect that the newer script-based version of a function is available and begin using it”);
and updating the binary to include the program code patch ([0062], “a game application … that is written in an interpreted scripting language … is completed … the developer system … converts the script … into binary code”) while the video game application continues to execute ([0072], “the script function asset … can be distributed … as a data update that can be used … during runtime of the game application”).
In regard to claim 3, Schmidt discloses
wherein the video game application links the first compiled program code and the second compiled program code in the binary ([0025], “compiled code can be … delivered as a binary patch to the application”).
In regard to claim 4, Schmidt discloses
wherein the first compiled program code and the second compiled program code are compiled by a compiler that is remote from the video game application ([0040], “the game application … on the user computing system … can communicate with an external server … such as the update server … to retrieve … as game patches”).
In regard to claim 8, Schmidt discloses
further comprising: executing, on a server, a first instance of the video game application and a second instance of the video game application ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”);
requesting, by the server, the third compiled program code associated with the program code patch ([0049], “Obtaining the updated version of the game application … may include … requesting the updated version from this server”);
receiving the third compiled program code ([0046], “The … computing system … can … receive updates to the game application”);
and updating the first instance and the second instance using the third compiled program code ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”).
In regard to claim 10, Schmidt discloses
wherein the third compiled program code is to replace the first compiled program
code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”), and where in the method further comprises: determining that ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”) the first compiled program code is not in use by the first instance of the video game application ([0055], “the update server … does not create or develop the game application”);
determining that the first compiled program code is in use by ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”) the second instance of the video game application ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”);
and replacing the first compiled program code with the third compiled program code for ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”) the first instance based on ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”) the first compiled program code not being in use ([0055], “the update server … does not create or develop the game application”).
In regard to claim 11, Schmidt discloses
further comprising: determining, subsequent to replacing the first compiled program code with the third compiled program code for ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”) the first instance, that ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”) the first compiled program code is not in use by the second instance of the video game application ([0055], “the update server … does not create or develop the game application”);
and replacing the first compiled program code with the third compiled program code for ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”) the second instance based on ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”) the first compiled program code not being in use ([0055], “the update server … does not create or develop the game application”).
In regard to claim 12, Schmidt discloses
wherein the third compiled program code is to replace the first compiled program code, and where in the method further comprises: determining that ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”) the first compiled program code is not in use by the video game application ([0055], “the update server … does not create or develop the game application”);
and replacing the first compiled program code with the third compiled program code based on ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”) the first compiled program code not being in use ([0055], “the update server … does not create or develop the game application”).
In regard to claim 13, Schmidt discloses
A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program code instructions that, when executed by a processor in a computer system, cause the processor to perform ([0115], “processes described herein may be embodied in… software code modules executed by a computing system that includes … processors … code modules may be stored in … non-transitory computer-readable medium or other computer storage device.) a method comprising ([0115], “the methods may be embodied in …computer hardware”): executing a video game application based on ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”) a binary including a first compiled program code and a second compiled program code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”);
receiving, while the video game application executes, a program code patch that includes a third compiled program code to replace the first or second compiled program code or to be added to the binary ([0024], “Embodiments of the disclosed technology utilize … interpreted script logic to facilitate rapid distribution of updates … scripted logic can be rapidly distributed to the user's computing device … during runtime of the application, the application can detect that the newer script-based version of a function is available and begin using it”);
and updating the binary to include the program code patch ([0062], “a game application … that is written in an interpreted scripting language … is completed … the developer system … converts the script … into binary code”) while the video game application continues to execute ([0072], “the script function asset … can be distributed … as a data update that can be used … during runtime of the game application”).
In regard to claim 15, Schmidt discloses
wherein the video game application links the first compiled program code and the second compiled program code in the binary ([0025], “compiled code can be … delivered as a binary patch to the application”).
In regard to claim 16, Schmidt discloses
wherein the first compiled program code and the second compiled program code are compiled by a compiler that is remote from the video game application ([0040], “the game application … on the user computing system … can communicate with an external server … such as the update server … to retrieve … as game patches”).
In regard to claim 18, Schmidt discloses
further comprising: executing, on a server, a first instance of the video game application and a second instance of the video game application ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”);
requesting, by the server, the third compiled program code associated with the program code patch ([0049], “Obtaining the updated version of the game application … may include … requesting the updated version from this server”);
receiving the third compiled program code ([0046], “The … computing system … can … receive updates to the game application”);
and updating the first instance and the second instance using the third compiled program code ([0042], “application … systems … can include … computing devices, such as servers … that may … execute … one or more instances of the game application”).
In regard to claim 20, Schmidt discloses
A system, comprising: one or more memories configured to store ([0032], “The user computing system … may have … memory”) computer-executable instructions ([0117], “A processor can … process computer-executable instructions”);
one or more processors configured to access the one or more memories and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least ([0117], “A processor can … process computer-executable instructions”): execute a video game application based on ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”) a binary including a first compiled program code and a second compiled program code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”);
receive, while the video game application executes, a program code patch that includes a third compiled program code to replace the first or second compiled program code or to be added to the binary ([0024], “Embodiments of the disclosed technology utilize … interpreted script logic to facilitate rapid distribution of updates … scripted logic can be rapidly distributed to the user's computing device … during runtime of the application, the application can detect that the newer script-based version of a function is available and begin using it”);
and update the binary to include the program code patch ([0062], “a game application … that is written in an interpreted scripting language … is completed … the developer system … converts the script … into binary code”) while the video game application continues to execute ([0072], “the script function asset … can be distributed … as a data update that can be used … during runtime of the game application”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Schmidt in view of US 20200184067 A1 (“Kanai”).
In regard to claim 2, Schmidt discloses
the third compiled program code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”);
and requesting the program code patch for download using the checksum identifier ([0064], “the user computing system … may … download the … code”).
Schmidt does not disclose
wherein the method further comprises: receiving an identification of a checksum identifier associated with
However, in the analogous field of information processing, Kanai discloses
wherein the method further comprises: receiving an identification of a checksum identifier associated with ([0034], “The checksums themselves may serve as identifiers”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, wherein the method further comprises: receiving an identification of a checksum identifier associated with, of Kanai into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding checksums and identifiers.
In regard to claim 14, Schmidt discloses
the third compiled program code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”);
and requesting the program code patch for download using the checksum identifier ([0064], “the user computing system … may … download the … code”).
Schmidt does not disclose
wherein the method further comprises: receiving an identification of a checksum identifier associated with
However, in the analogous field of information processing, Kanai discloses
wherein the method further comprises: receiving an identification of a checksum identifier associated with ([0034], “The checksums themselves may serve as identifiers”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, wherein the method further comprises: receiving an identification of a checksum identifier associated with, of Kanai into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding checksums and identifiers.
Claims 5, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Schmidt in view of US 11507362 B1 (“Kinsburskiy”) and in further view of US 20250252524 A1 (“Sheran”).
In regard to claim 5, Schmidt discloses
wherein the program code patch is received based on ([0025], “compiled code can be … delivered as a binary patch to the application”) the video game application ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”) and wherein the method further comprises: updating the binary based on ([0062], “a game application … that is written in an interpreted scripting language … is completed … the developer system … converts the script … into binary code”)
Schmidt does not disclose
metadata associated with
and a dependency graph associated with the video game application,
the metadata
and the dependency graph.
However, in the analogous field of software updates, Kinsburskiy discloses
metadata associated with (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”).
the metadata (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, metadata associated with and the metadata, of Kinsburskiy into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding instrumentation information and metadata.
Further, Sheran is also analogous art because it is the field of graphics processing. Sheran discloses
and a dependency graph associated with the video game application ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game … the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”),
and the dependency graph ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game … the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”).
Substituting a dependency graph associated with the video game application and the dependency graph of Sheran into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding a GPU, a workload, a video game, and a dependency graph.
In regard to claim 7, Schmidt discloses
the video game application indicates ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”), for the first compiled program code, dependency information between the first compiled program code and one or more other compiled program codes for the video game application ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”).
Schmidt does not disclose
wherein the dependency graph associated with
However, in the analogous field of graphics processing, Sheran discloses
wherein the dependency graph associated with ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game… the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, wherein the dependency graph associated with, of Kanai into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding a GPU, workload, a video game, and a dependency graph.
In regard to claim 17, Schmidt discloses
wherein the program code patch is received based on ([0025], “compiled code can be … delivered as a binary patch to the application”) the video game application ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”) and wherein the method further comprises: updating the binary based on ([0062], “a game application … that is written in an interpreted scripting language … is completed … the developer system … converts the script … into binary code”)
Schmidt does not disclose
metadata associated with
and a dependency graph associated with the video game application,
the metadata
and the dependency graph.
However, in the analogous field of software updates, Kinsburskiy discloses
metadata associated with (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”).
the metadata (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, metadata associated with and the metadata, of Kinsburskiy into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding instrumentation information and metadata.
Further, Sheran is also analogous art because it is the field of graphics processing. Sheran discloses
and a dependency graph associated with the video game application ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game … the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”),
and the dependency graph ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game … the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”).
Substituting a dependency graph associated with the video game application and the dependency graph of Sheran into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding a GPU, a workload, a video game, and a dependency graph.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Schmidt in view of Kinsburskiy and in further view of Kanai.
In regard to claim 6, Schmidt discloses
the video game application includes ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”)
the video game application ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”),
the first compiled program code ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”)
Schmidt does not disclose
wherein the metadata associated with
a manifest specifying a predefined list of executable combinations of compiled program codes for
wherein the metadata further specifies, for the first compiled program code, a source code asset associated with the first compiled program code and one or more properties for using
and wherein the one or more properties indicate compatibility information between the first compiled program code and one or more other compiled program codes for the video game application
However, in the analogous field of software updates, Kinsburskiy discloses
wherein metadata associated with (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”).
wherein the metadata further specifies, for the first compiled program code, a source code asset associated with the first compiled program code and one or more properties for using (column 13, lines 22-25, “The … source code comprises … functions … or references to the symbols that are used in the patch”)
and wherein the one or more properties indicate compatibility information between the first compiled program code and one or more other compiled program codes for the video game application (column 6, lines 22-26, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata that contains … symbols identified … by the generator …, i.e., “binding” symbols which are symbols from the original application also used in the patch”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, wherein metadata associated with, wherein the metadata further specifies, for the first compiled program code, a source code asset associated with the first compiled program code and one or more properties for using,
and wherein the one or more properties indicate compatibility information between the first compiled program code and one or more other compiled program codes for the video game application, of Kinsburskiy into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding instrumentation information, metadata, source code, functions, symbols, a patch, and a generator.
Further, Kanai is also analogous art because it is the field of information processing. Kanai discloses
a manifest specifying a predefined list of executable combinations of compiled program codes for ([0145], “memory execution images of executable computer programs are registered in the … list”)
Substituting a manifest specifying a predefined list of executable combinations of compiled program codes of Kanai into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding images, computer programs, and a list.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Schmidt in view of Kinsburskiy and in further view of Sheran and Kanai.
In regard to claim 9, Schmidt discloses
wherein the third compiled program code is requested based on ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”)
the video game application ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”)
Schmidt does not disclose
metadata associated with
a dependency graph associated with the video game application,
and a checksum identifier of the third compiled program code.
However, in the analogous field of software updates, Kinsburskiy discloses
metadata associated with (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, metadata associated with of Kinsburskiy into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding instrumentation information and metadata.
Further, Sheran is also analogous art because it is the field of graphics processing. Sheran discloses
a dependency graph associated with the video game application ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game) … the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”)
Substituting a dependency graph associated with the video game application of Sheran into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding a GPU, a workload, a video game, and a dependency graph.
Still further, Kanai is also analogous art because it is the field of information processing. Kanai discloses
and a checksum identifier of the third compiled program code ([0034], “The checksums themselves may serve as identifiers”)
Substituting a checksum identifier of the third compiled program code of Kanai into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding checksums and identifiers.
In regard to claim 19, Schmidt discloses
wherein the third compiled program code is requested based on ([0062], “the developer system … converts the script … into binary code … and compiles it”)
the video game application ([0033], “The user computing system … is capable of executing a game application …, such as a video game”)
Schmidt does not disclose
metadata associated with
a dependency graph associated with the video game application,
and a checksum identifier of the third compiled program code.
However, in the analogous field of software updates, Kinsburskiy discloses
metadata associated with (column 6, lines 22-23, “the instrumentation information comprises metadata”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) before the effective filing date to have added the missing claimed
limitations, the claim limitations, metadata associated with of Kinsburskiy into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt and it would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding instrumentation information and metadata.
Further, Sheran is also analogous art because it is the field of graphics processing. Sheran discloses
a dependency graph associated with the video game application ([0065], “a GPU … may obtain an indication of the … workload … from … a video game) … the GPU … may generate a dependency graph”)
Substituting a dependency graph associated with the video game application of Sheran into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding a GPU, a workload, a video game, and a dependency graph.
Still further, Kanai is also analogous art because it is the field of information processing. Kanai discloses
and a checksum identifier of the third compiled program code ([0034], “The checksums themselves may serve as identifiers”)
Substituting a checksum identifier of the third compiled program code of Kanai into systems and methods for executing a game application of Schmidt would not change the basic principle operation of Schmidt, nor would it render Schmidt unsuitable for its intended purpose of systems and methods for executing a game application; rather it would enhance Schmidt by adding checksums and identifiers.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure. The following references have been cited to further show the
state of the art.
• US 20250272211 A1 (“Sahu”)
Sahu discloses a system and method for tracing and monitoring functions in binary codes.
• US 20230099668 A1 (“Corvi”)
Corvi discloses systems and methods for providing patch and bulk operations for a legacy game.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be
reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights