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 .
Priority
This application claims priority as a 371 national stage entry of international application PCT/KR2023/014876, filed September 26, 2023, which claims priority to KR10-2022-0149904, filed November 10, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objection – Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested:
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SELECTING GAME CHANNELS FOR JOINING CHARACTERS TO A GAME
Objection - Specification
Per and MPEP § 211 and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2)
(2) Except for a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d), any nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of the series code and serial number), international application number and international filing date, or international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). The reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application.
The Specification filed May 2, 2025 does not include the above reference and should be amended to include a proper reference to the international and foreign applications listed on the application data sheet.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner has adopted the following interpretations for examination purposes:
The term “channel” is understood as a game unit that has the same game space as the background but is distinctively and independently played (p. 9 lines 2-6)
The phrasing game space as a background is understood as the game space (i.e., virtual space) in which the play of the game takes place (e.g., p. 7 lines 19-20)
The term joining point is understood as a region or object present at a specific location in the game space, and is a point at which the change of a channel may be performed (e.g., p. 8 lines 9-13).
Active terms in dependent claims 2-8: Claims 2-8 recite various limitations that appear in an active tense. For example, “wherein the controller generates a plurality of channels, distinct from each other, for a same game space…”. For examination purposes, these are interpreted as an extension of the functionality the components of claim 1 (such as the controller, et al.) are “configured to” perform, rather than active method steps within the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Non-Statutory
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 recites a “computer readable medium storing instructions” that embraces non-statutory subject matter (e.g., signal per se – see MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Computer readable media (CRM), under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), will cover an ineligible signal per se unless defined otherwise in the application as filed. The specification as filed does not limit the “computer readable medium” as excluding transitory signals or signals per se, instead providing that the medium “may” comprise certain types of medium accompanied by an open-ended list of exemplary media (see p. 19).
Claim 14 is rejected because the BRI of claim 1 encompasses a signal per set, which is not one of the four statutory classes of invention. Applicant is advised that amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium shall overcome the noted rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Judicial Exception
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-14, under Step 2A claims 1-14 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative of claims 1-8, claim 1 recites
determine whether to change a channel to which the user's character belongs when the user's character reaches the joining point,
select another channel to which the user's character will be joined, and
join the user's character to the selected channel.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by setting forth or describing managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)). This is because the above emphasized limitations set forth or describe the human-performable operation of selecting and joining a channel during gaming.
Additionally, claim 1 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper. This is because the steps of claim 1 can be accomplished in the human mind, or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the emphasized limitations are observations or judgements performable in the human mind. Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 also recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including:
storage configured to store data on a game space in which at least one joining point is set;
an input/output interface configured to provide a game screen of one channel having the game space as a background to a user and receive input from the user so that the user's character moves within the game space and plays the game; and
a controller [configured to perform the abstract operations].
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). That is, an input/output interface configured to provide a game screen of one channel having the game space as a background to a user and receive input from the user so that the user's character moves within the game space and plays the game is nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware and only serves to generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Another key consideration under Prong Two is whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. This is particularly relevant in consideration of the use of the controller (which is a generic processor – see p. 10 lines 12-14) to “join” a channel. Here, the claims provide no restriction on how this is performed.
As written, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, storage configured to store data on a game space in which at least one joining point is set represent little more than extra-solution activity that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
storing or retrieving information from memory
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, dependent claims 2-8 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-8 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-8 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. As with claim 1, the additional elements are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). This is true even in view of the ”cutoff graphic” of claim 3, which is effectively “apply it” and a general link of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (in this case, online games).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-8 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-8 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 9-13 (method) and claim 14 (storage medium), claims 9-13 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-8 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Notably claim 9 is nearly devoid of any additional elements. Accordingly, claims 9-13 and 14 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baszucki (US 2010/0093438).
Regarding claim 14, Baszucki discloses a computer-readable storage medium having stored instructions (see: 0021-0022, 0103).
With respect to stored thereon a program for performing the method set forth in claim 9, as claimed the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, and no functional relationship exists. The medium of claim 14 simply stores the data, which is for the intended purpose of performing the method of claim 9. The Examiner suggests amending as follows:
14. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that are configured to cause one or more processors to perform .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baszucki (US 2010/0093438).
Regarding claim 1, Baszucki discloses an apparatus for providing a game, the apparatus comprising:
storage configured to store data on a game space in which at least one joining point is set (see: 0028, 0031, 0038, 0043-0046, Fig. 3, Fig. 6);
an input/output interface configured to provide a game screen of one channel having the game space as a background to a user and receive input from the user so that the user's character moves within the game space and plays the game (see: 0037, 0048, 0084, Fig. 2 (204, 208), Fig. 8 (802)); and
a controller configured to determine whether to change a channel to which the user's character belongs when the user's character reaches the joining point, to select another channel to which the user's character will be joined, and to join the user's character to the selected channel (see: 0078, 0025, 0032, 0067-0068, 0082, 0084, 0088, 0091, Fig. 8 (806, 808), Fig. 9 (906[Wingdings font/0xE0]914)).
Note: When the portal is entered or boundary crossed, online gaming service requests a place and an instance of a place. The player may be transferred/routed to the place and instance. The routing may be decided based on various factors including user-defined friendship groups, crowded/occupancy limits, place restrictions (e.g., age, subscription level, game conditions), server load, server proximity, max/min users, user rating, clan membership, payment level, etc.
[Claim 2] The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller generates a plurality of channels, distinct from each other, for a same game space, causes the user to belong to one of the plurality of channels, independently proceeds with the game for each of the channels (see: 0032-0033, 0077, Fig. 7, Fig. 9 (908[Wingdings font/0xE0]910[Wingdings font/0xE0]914)), and
determines whether to change the channel of the user's character and the channel that the user's character will join by considering at least one of a number of characters belonging to each channel and a game progress for each channel (see: 0025-0026 (runtime conditions, popularity), 0032 (maximum/minimum number of users), 0088 (recent place occupancy), 0089 (occupancy minimums and limits), 0068).
[Claim 6] The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller determines whether to change the channel to which the user's character belongs when the user's character reaches the joining point, selects another channel that the user's character will join, and joins the user's character to the selected channel (see: 0078, 0025, 0032, 0067-0068, 0082, 0084, 0088, 0091, Fig. 8 (806, 808), Fig. 9 (906[Wingdings font/0xE0]914)) when the user's character performs a preset action at the joining point (see: 0034 (user system initiates transfer between places, e.g. via hyperlink), 0076 (teleport via a hyperlink), 0078 (user system has selected a hyperlink)).
[Claim 7] The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller determines to change the channel to which the user's character belongs when a number of characters belonging to the channel to which the user's character belongs is smaller than a preset minimum number of characters (see: 0032 (maximum number of users, minimum number of users), 0088 (recent place occupancy), 0033 (exceeds a maximum number of users or drops below a minimum user threshold), 0089 (occupancy minimums and limits)).
[Claim 8] The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller searches for other channels that the user's character will join, and selects another channel, having a number of characters smaller than a preset maximum number of characters and a game progress corresponding to the joining point reached by the user's character, from among retrieved other channels as the other channel that the user's character will join (see: Fig. 8 (806), Fig. 9 (908), Fig. 11, 0032-0033, 0068, 0089).
Regarding claims 9-10 and claim 14, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 1 and 7. Claims 9-10 and claim 14 are rejected under at least similar rationale as set forth above.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baszucki in view of Hong (US 2020/0016489).
Regarding claim 3 and parallel claim 12, Baszucki discloses all of the above including wherein the controller changes the channel to which the user's character belongs to the selected channel and then sets it while the transition takes place, and proceeds with the game by providing the user with a game screen of the selected channel (see: 0078, 0025, 0032, 0067-0068, 0082, 0084, 0088, 0091, Fig. 8 (806, 808), Fig. 9 (906[Wingdings font/0xE0]914)).
Baszucki, however, does not disclose wherein the controller provides the user with a view cut-off graphic effect when the user's character reaches the joining point, that the transition when the channel is set is the view cut-off graphic effect, proceeding with the game when the provision of the view cut-off graphic effect is completed.
To this accord, Hong teaches a controller that provides the user with a view cut-off graphic effect when the user's character reaches the joining point, the transition comprising the view cut-off graphic effect, and proceeding with the game when the provision of the view cut-off graphic effect is completed (see: 0004, 0142-0143, 0167, Fig. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the transitions of Baszucki to have included the cutscenes as taught by Hong in order to have enhanced the immersion and game experience of the players of Baszucki (see: Hong: 0143).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baszucki in view of Cunningham (US 2003/0224855).
Regarding claim 4, Baszucki discloses wherein the controller changes the channel to which the user's character belongs to the selected channel and then sets it, proceeds with the game by providing the user with a game screen of the selected channel (see: 0025 (continuous user experience during routing), 0080-0082, 0084-0085, Fig. 8 (808), Fig. 9 (914)), and
Baszucki, however, does not disclose that the controller provides a message notifying another user belonging to the selected channel that the user's character has joined.
To this accord, Cunningham teaches a controller that provides a message notifying another user belonging to the selected channel that the user's character has joined (see: 0057, Fig. 6 (605)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Baszucki to have utilized the known notification technique as taught by Cunningham in order to have notified the users of Baszucki of joining players (see: Cunningham: 0057), thereby making users more informed concerning other users currently playing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baszucki in view of Otomo (US 2018/0280806).
Regarding claim 5, Baszucki teaches wherein the controller changes the channel to which the user's character belongs to the selected channel and then sets it, proceeds with the game by providing the user with a game screen of the selected channel (see: 0025 (continuous user experience during routing), 0080-0082, 0084-0085, Fig. 8 (808), Fig. 9 (914)).
Baszucki, however, does not disclose provides a reward to at least one of the user and the other user belonging to the selected channel.
To this accord, Otomo teaches a controller that provides a reward to at least one of the user and the other user belonging to the selected channel (see: 0004, 0052, 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Baszucki to have utilized the known technique of providing regards or incentives as taught by Otomo in order to have encouraged the participation of new players in the network game game of Baszucki (see: Otomo: 0032).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baszucki in view of Dun (US 2013/0296045).
Regarding claim 11, Baszucki discloses all the above and wherein selecting the other channel comprises: selecting another channel, having a number of characters smaller than a preset maximum number of characters, from among other channels having the game space as a background (see: Fig. 8 (806), Fig. 9 (908), Fig. 11, 0032-0033, 0068, 0089).
Baszucki, however, does not also teach that the selection is based on a game progress corresponding to the joining point reached by the user's character. Notably, game progress may be understood as an area reached by the characters belonging to the channel (see: Specification, p. 13 lines 21-25).
To this accord, Dun teaches a system for providing a game that assigns characters to a n instance based on a game progress corresponding to the joining point reached by the user's character, such as by determining when characters of an instance are entering a zone and adding characters to a group of characters that are in the zone (see: Fig. 3, 0021, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Baszucki to have utilized the known player routing technique as taught by Dun in order to have avoiding segregating characters in such a way that would have made a game less entertaining or less interactive, especially for players in unique circumstances, and thus avoid a decrease in the total player population over time (see: Dun: 0019).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baszucki in view of Cunningham and Otomo.
Regarding claim 13, Baszucki discloses wherein joining comprising changing the channel to which the user's character belongs to the selected channel and then setting it when the user's character reaches the joining point and proceeding with the game by providing the user with a game screen of the selected channel (see: 0025 (continuous user experience during routing), 0080-0082, 0084-0085, Fig. 8 (808), Fig. 9 (914)).
Baszucki, however, does not disclose:
providing a message notifying another user belonging to the selected channel that the user's character has joined; and,
providing a reward to the other user belonging to the selected channel.
To this accord, Cunningham teaches providing a message notifying another user belonging to the selected channel that the user's character has joined (see: 0057, Fig. 6 (605)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Baszucki to have utilized the known notification technique as taught by Cunningham in order to have notified the users of Baszucki of joining players (see: Cunningham: 0057), thereby making users more informed concerning other users currently playing.
Lastly, Otomo teaches providing a reward to at least one of the user and the other user belonging to the selected channel (see: 0004, 0052, 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Baszucki to have utilized the known technique of providing regards or incentives as taught by Otomo in order to have encouraged the participation of new players in the network game of Baszucki (see: Otomo: 0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dun (US 2013/0296045 – cited above in reference to claim 11) is an alternative potential 102(a)(1) reference that teaches an apparatus for providing a game, the apparatus comprising: storage configured to store data on a game space in which at least one joining point is set (see: 0061, 0064, Fig. 2);
an input/output interface configured to provide a game screen of one channel having the game space as a background to a user and receive input from the user so that the user's character moves within the game space and plays the game (see: Fig. 5 (502[Wingdings font/0xE0]512,514)); and
a controller configured to determine whether to change a channel to which the user's character belongs when the user's character reaches the joining point, to select another channel to which the user's character will be joined, and to join the user's character to the selected channel (see: Fig. 3 (302, 306, 308), 0021, 0041-0042).
Note: Dun determines when character(s) enter a zone and determines to add the character(s) entering the zone to the zone or to a different instance of the zone.
Gallizzi (US 2017/0304727) teaches migrating save data to a data center in the vicinity of a user. The migration/switching can occur during game play, during a pause in game play, or at any other transition point defined for the game. The switching is carried out by migrating the save data of the user that includes the current state of the game to a different data center identified within the second geo location (see: 0036, Fig. 3).
Dorn (US 2021/0402304) teaches migrating players to new sessions/servers responsive to various transitional events such as traversing from one region of a game to another (e.g. opening or moving through a door, portal, entry, divider, etc., crossing a boundary, jumping between locations of a game map, etc.), completing a significant activity within the game story (ref. 210, e.g. completion of a stage/chapter/level/major event, defeating a boss character, solving a puzzle, achieving entry to a new region of the game space (see: 0066, Fig. 2).
Bruno (US 2014/0228108) teaches routing a user to a game session based on a plurality of factors including a game progress (see: 0022, 0054 (progress through game levels), 0063).
Yong (US 2020/0197797) teaches a system a user data migration agent that migrates relevant gaming interactivities of different users to assigned compute(s) of a region/sub-region (see: 0077, 0075).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
