DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reading means” in claims 1 and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 includes the limitations “wherein the betting area includes a betting area distinguished for each player provided in each of the plurality of player positions, the betting target area includes a side betting area, and the chip judging means is configured to estimate a region on which the gaming chip is placed to estimate which of side betting areas the gaming chip is placed on in both cases where the side betting area is provided with the betting area distinguished for each player and the side betting area for the plurality of player positions is together provided for each of types of side betting areas”; However, it is unclear in regards to how both cases or scenarios are possible e.g. the claim indicates that the betting area is distinguished for each player providing in each of the plurality of player positions, but later suggests cases where the side betting area is provided with the betting area distinguished for each player and the side betting area for the plurality of player positions is together provided for each of types of side betting area. It is not clear in regards to if applicant is claiming both cases together or separate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 13, 19-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht (US 2009/0267742) in view of Takine (US 2021/0090379).
Claims 1 and 22: Hecht discloses a gaming table system (Abstract, Claims 1-2) configured to read on a gaming table a gaming chip (article) in which an RFID tag is built (Abstract, ¶ 45), wherein a betting area including a plurality of betting target areas (¶ 69-71, 73-75) is arranged on the gaming table, the gaming table system comprising: a reading means including a plurality of antennas provided at a plurality of locations on the gaming table wherein the antenna is configured to read the RFID tag of the gaming chip within a reading range and reading ranges of adjacent antennas of the plurality of antennas includes an overlapping region with each other, whereby the RFID tag of the gaming chip placed on the overlapping region is to be read by the plurality of antennas related to the overlapping region (Fig. 9, ¶ 70-73, ¶ 83-87); and a chip judging means (at least one processor) configured to estimate, when the same RFID tag is read by the plurality of antennas, a region on which the gaming chip in which the RFID tag is built is placed based on a combination of reading results of the plurality of antennas (¶ 83-87, 103, Claims 1-2).
Hecht teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting an imaging means configured to take an image of the betting area including the plurality of betting target areas to generate an image including a chip stack consisting of one gaming chip or a plurality of gaming chips placed on the betting area; an image recognizing means configured to analyze the image to recognize a position of the chip stack on the gaming table and a type and number of gaming chip constituting the chip stack; and associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on an estimating result and a recognizing result of the chip stack by the image recognizing means. However, an analogous art of Takine teaches an imaging means (camera 52) configured to take an image of the betting area including the plurality of betting target areas to generate an image including a chip stack consisting of one gaming chip or a plurality of gaming chips placed on the betting area (¶ 46, 207-209); an image recognizing means (chip recognition device) configured to analyze the image to recognize a position of the chip stack on the gaming table and a type and number of gaming chip constituting the chip stack (¶ 46, 207-209); and associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on an estimating result and a recognizing result of the chip stack by the image recognizing means (¶ 46, 207-209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming table system, including the estimating result, of Hecht such that the estimating result (of Hecht) is associated with the recognizing result as taught by Takine to provide prevent fraud and provide warning for possible invalid chips (Takine - ¶ 208-209). Such a modification providing a more secure gaming table system.
Claim 2: Hecht teaches wherein the chip judging means is configured to estimate a region smaller than the reading range of the plurality of antennas as the region on which the gaming chip is placed based on a combination of the reading results of the plurality of antennas (Fig 9, ¶ 83-87, the overlapping regions are estimated as a region smaller than the reading range of the plurality of antennas).
Claim 3: Additionally, Takine teaches wherein the reading means is configured to repeatedly perform reading using the plurality of antennas, and the chip judging means is configured to associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on a reading result of the reading means and information on a timing thereof (Figs. 13-14, 46, 160-17, 182-184, 195, 202, 207-209, 225). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reading means using the plurality of antennas and the association means of Hecht in view of Takine such that reading is repeatedly performed and the chip judging means is configured to associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on a reading result of the reading means and information on a timing thereof as taught by Takine to provide prevent fraud and provide warning for possible invalid chips (Takine - ¶ 208-209). Such a modification providing a more accurate association and/or more secure gaming table system.
Claim 6: Additionally, Takine teaches the system further comprising a possessor identifying unit (management control device in combination with the reading control device) configured to identify a possessor of the gaming chip based on the reading result of the RFID tag of the gaming chip by the reading unit (¶ 137, 141, 154, 167-172), wherein the chip judging unit (management control device) is configured to recognize a plurality of gaming chips identified to be possessed by a same possessor by the possessor identifying unit among a plurality of gaming chips placed in a same estimated region, as one chip stack (one chip stack as best understood as known the plurality of stacked chips belong to the user) (¶ 98, 102 - "This allows the game tokens 83 to be read separately within the same betting target area. This allows, for example, when there are multiple stacks of game tokens 83 in the same betting target, such as when a back bet is made, those stacks can be read by separate reading antennas 7, so that a plurality of stacks of game tokens 83 in the same betting target area can be read separately. For each stack, by recognizing and identifying the player who bet on it, it is possible to manage the main player (sitting player) and the back betting player by linking the user IDs to the information on the bet game tokens or payout game tokens.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hecht in view of Takine with possessor means as taught by Takine to provide higher degree of security. Such a modification helps prevents cheating or mistakes; keeps track of bets; and helps track movement of gaming tokens (Takine - ¶ 4-5).
Claim 7: Hecht teaches wherein the chip judging means is configured to estimate, when the same RFID tag is read by the plurality of antennas, a region on which the gaming chip in which the RFID tag is built is placed based on a combination of reading intensities of the plurality of antennas (¶ 83-87).
Claim 8: Hecht teaches the target betting area including a betting area distinguished for each player providing in each of the plurality of player positions (¶ 61) or a betting area including a plurality of different types of bet positions (¶ 68-69) and the antenna arrays are only placed in and around areas where chips would be present on the table surface (87-88) and that the chip judging means is configured to estimate a region on which the gaming chip is placed to estimate which betting areas the gaming chip is placed on (see above, ¶ 70-71, 83-87). Furthermore, Takine teaches the betting area includes a betting area distinguished for each player provided in each of the plurality of player positions, the betting target area includes a side betting area (¶ 26, 29-30, 96-97, 160-170, 182-187), and the chip judging means is configured to estimate a region on which the gaming chip is placed to estimate which of side betting areas the gaming chip is placed on in both cases (interpreted as in the alternative) where the side betting area is provided with the betting area distinguished for each player and the side betting area for the plurality of player positions is together provided for each of types of side betting areas (¶ 26, 29-30, 160-170, 182-187). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming table system of Hecht in view of Takine with the side betting areas of Takine to accommodate other types of table games that require tracking of gaming chips. Such a modification would make the overall gaming system more optimal or capable of being played by users who prefer certain types of games.
Claim 9: Hecht in view of Takine teaches wherein contents stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip includes chip identifying information for uniquely identifying the gaming chip (Takine - ¶ 137), and the chip judging means is configured to associate the chip identifying information of the gaming chip included in the chip stack with the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means (¶ 205, 207-208).
Claim 11: Takine teaches wherein the chip stack consisting of the one gaming chip or plurality of gaming chips placed on the betting area is a chip stack bet on a game, and the chip judging means is configured to associate, for the bet chip stack, the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other (¶ 204-209).
Claim 13: Hecht teaches that antenna arrays are placed only in and around areas where chips are placed on the table surface and Fig. 9 illustrates where the ranges of the antennas cover a betting zone which implies that the reading ranges of the plurality of antennas cover the entire betting area on the gaming table (see above, ¶ 83, 87). However, in the alternative Takine teaches the reading ranges of the plurality of antennas cover the entire betting area on the gaming table (¶ 138-139, 16-166, Figs. 11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gaming table system, particularly the reading ranges of the plurality of antennas, of Hecht in view of Takine, such that the ranges cover the entire betting area as taught by Takine because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of detecting the positions of gaming chips consistent with the betting areas in which at least Hecht is intended. Such a modification amounting to rearranging parts of invention which involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 19: Additionally, Takine teaches wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip (chip id) is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip, the type of gaming chip corresponds to a value (574) of the gaming chip, and the chip judging unit is configured to judge an amount (574) of the chip stack based on the type identifying information (¶ 166-170). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the game table system of Hecht in view of Takine with the value judging means of Takine because such a modification would of yielded predictable results, namely, a means of accurately tracking table game play in which Hecht is intended (¶ 67). Such a modification provides a higher degree of security by preventing cheating or mistakes; keeps track of bets; and helps track movement of gaming tokens (Takine - ¶ 4-5).
Claim 20: Additionally, Takine teaches the system further comprising a player identifying unit configured to identify a player playing a game on the gaming table (¶ 37, 103, 173), wherein the chip judging unit is further configured to identify a player corresponding to the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit (¶ 166-174). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the game table system of Hecht in view of Takine with the player/stack means of Takine because such a modification would of yielded predictable results, namely, a means of accurately tracking table game play in which Hecht is intended (¶ 67). Such a modification provides a higher degree of security by preventing cheating or mistakes; keeps track of bets; and helps track movement of gaming tokens (Takine - ¶ 4-5).
Claim(s) 5, 10, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht (US 2009/0267742) in view of Takine (US 2021/0090379), and in further view of Shigeta (US 2020/0273287).
Claim 5: Hecht in view of Takine teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip, and the chip judging means is further configured to associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on a type and number of gaming chip indicated by the reading result of the RFID tag and the type and number of gaming chip recognized by the image recognizing means. Hecht in view of Takine at least teaches the chip judging means is further configured to associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each the reading result of the RFID tag and the type and number of gaming chip recognized by the image recognizing means (Takine - ¶ 207-209). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip (¶ 15, 53, Claim 8), and the chip judging means is further configured to associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on a type and number of gaming chip indicated by the reading result of the RFID tag and the type and number of gaming chip recognized by the image recognizing means (¶ 8, 25, 52-54, 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the association means of Hecht in view of Takine such further association include the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other based on a type and number of gaming chip indicated by the reading result of the RFID tag and the type and number of gaming chip recognized by the image recognizing means at taught by Shigeta because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determining fraud in which at least Hecht in view of Takine is intended (see above). Such a modification avoids the use of fraud game tokens within the gaming environment (Shigeta - ¶ 2-4).
Claim 10: Additionally, Takine teaches a possessor updating means configured to rewrite possessor information of a gaming chip paid out by a dealer for a gaming chip which has won a game as a result of a game using the gaming chip over possessor information of the gaming chip which has won the game (¶ 171-178). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hecht in view of Takine in view of Shigeta with possessor updating means as taught by Takine to provide higher degree of security. Such a modification helps prevents cheating or mistakes; keeps track of bets; and helps track movement of gaming tokens (Takine - ¶ 4-5).
Claim 14: Hecht in view of Takine teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the chip judging means is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is less than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing means, that the chip stack includes an illicit gaming chip of which there is an illicitness in the RFID tag within the region. However, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches wherein the chip judging means is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is less than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing means, that the chip stack includes an illicit gaming chip of which there is an illicitness in the RFID tag within the region (¶ 8, 10, 29, 49, 51-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the game table system of Hecht in view of Takine with illicit means of Shigeta because such a modification would provide a means of detecting fraud. Such a modification avoids the use of fraud or faulty game tokens within the gaming environment (Shigeta - ¶ 2-4).
Claim 16: Hecht in view of Takine teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip, and the chip judging means is configured to judge, for the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means, that the chip stack includes an illicit gaming chip when a type and number of gaming chip indicated by the reading result of the RFID tag is different from the type and number of gaming chip in the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means. However, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip (¶ 15, 53, Claim 8), and the chip judging means is configured to judge, for the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means, that the chip stack includes an illicit gaming chip when a type and number of gaming chip indicated by the reading result of the RFID tag is different from the type and number of gaming chip in the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means (¶ 8, 10, 29, 49, 51-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the game table system of Hecht in view of Takine with illicit means of Shigeta because such a modification would provide a means of detecting fraud. Such a modification avoids the use of fraud or faulty game tokens within the gaming environment (Shigeta - ¶ 2-4).
Claim 17: Shigeta teaches wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip (¶ 15, 53, Claim 8), and the chip judging means is further configured to identify the chip stack including the illicit gaming chip among the chip stacks recognized by the image recognizing means based on a type and number of gaming chip indicated by the reading result of the RFID tag and the type and number of gaming chip recognized by the image recognizing means (¶ 8, 10, 29, 49, 51-58).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht (US 2009/0267742) in view of Takine (US 2021/0090379), and in further view of Shigeta (US 2022/0101688).
Claim 12: Hecht in view of Takine teaches the above, in addition to wherein the chip stack consisting of the one gaming chip or plurality of gaming chips placed in the betting area is a chip stack paid by a dealer for a chip stack which has bet on a game and won the game (Takine - ¶ 140, 172-178, 186-187), but lacks explicitly suggesting the chip judging means is configured to associate, for the paid chip stack, the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing means and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading means with each other. However, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches a chip judging unit (controller) configured to associate, for a paid chip stack, the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit with each other (Figs. 15-16, ¶ 155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hecht in view of Takine with the paid chip stack association means of Shigeta because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of tracking movements of gaming tokens during a game in which at least Hecht in view of Takine is intended (Hecht - ¶ 67). Such a modification prevents dealer errors within the gaming environment (Shigeta - ¶ 155).
Claim 15: Hecht in view of Takine teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the chip judging unit is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is more than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing unit, that a gaming chip which is in a blind spot of the imaging unit and not recognized by the image recognizing unit is included within the region. Hecht at least teaches providing a means for accurately tracking table play without requiring more effort from personnel (¶ 67). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches wherein the chip judging unit is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is more than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing unit, that a gaming chip which is in a blind spot of the imaging unit and not recognized by the image recognizing unit is included within the region (Figs. 9-10, ¶ 124-127). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hecht in view of Takine with the blind spot means of Shigeta because such a modification would have yielded predicable results, namely, a means of tracking game play on a gaming table in which at least Hecht is intended (see above). Such a modification prevents mistakes from being made within the gaming environment (Shigeta - ¶ 155).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 18, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights