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 .
Status
The filing on 09/24/2025 amended claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11, 15, 20-23, and cancelled claim 26. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-25 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 15 and 23.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug (US 20160327789 A1) in view of Crocco (US 20120326948 A1) and Vallius (US 20170102544 A1) and in further view of Molinaro (US 20170136597 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klug teaches an augmented reality system (100’, 100”, 1000, 2000; Fig. 1-35B; [0060]), comprising: a light source (120, 1020, 2020) configured to generate a virtual light beam, wherein the virtual light beam carries information for a virtual object; at least one light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) being transparent to a first real-world light beam, a plurality of beam splitters (162, 2026) adapted to split the virtual light beam into a plurality of virtual light beams including a first virtual light beam, and a plurality of liquid crystal (LC) shutters (164) that control when the at least one light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) is illuminated; wherein the first virtual light beam enters a first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) of said at least one light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), propagates through the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) by total internal reflection (TIR) whereby the first virtual light beam internally reflects only off of each of inner faces of opposed periphery surfaces of the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) and exits the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090; [0060]-[0064]); and wherein the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) further includes an exit pupil expander (EPE) that increases the numerical aperture of a light source (120, 1020, 2020), an orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) that, together with the EPE, expands light in orthogonal directions ([0109]-[0110]).
Klug does not teach a lens disposed adjacent to and spaced from an exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), the lens not contacting the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), wherein the lens is configured with a tint that absorbs an amount of real-world light to allow a portion of the real-world light to transmit through the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090).
Crocco teaches a lens (100/104) disposed adjacent to and spaced from an exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (110, 128), the lens (100/104) not contacting the first light guiding optical element (110, 128), wherein the lens (100/104) is configured with a tint that absorbs an amount of real-world light to allow a portion of the real-world light to transmit through the first light guiding optical element (110, 128; [0025]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Klug with Crocco; because it allows limiting environment light to improve viewing experience.
Neither Klug nor Crocco teaches a selective reflective coating on the exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), said selective reflective coating being angularly selective such that the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) is substantially transparent to real-world light with a low angle of incidence and highly reflective to oblique real-world light.
Vallius teaches a selective reflective coating (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025) on the exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010), said selective reflective coating being angularly selective such that the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010) is substantially transparent to real-world light with a low angle of incidence and highly reflective to oblique real-world light ([0030], [0034], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Klug, Crocco with Vallius; because it limits strayed light affecting picture quality.
Neither Klug, Crocco nor Vallius teaches the lens further comprises ink orientation markings, wherein the ink orientation markings are disposed at east, north, and west locations relative to the lens and are used during assembly to mount the lens onto an eyeglass frame.
Molinaro teaches ink orientation markings, wherein the ink orientation markings (34, 35) are disposed at east, north, and west locations relative to the lens (30) and are used during assembly to mount the lens onto an eyeglass frame ([0071], [0073], [0074], [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Klug, Crocco and Vallius with Molinaro; because it allows precise mounting of the lens to the frame to improve the alignment during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results in the lens (100/104 of Crocco) provides a protective element to the first light guiding optical element (110, 128 of Crocco; 130, 330, 810, 910, 1010 of Vallius, 190, 1090, 2090 of Klug) and the first virtual light beam exits the first light guiding optical element through the exit pupil expander and toward a user's eye, the exit pupil expander comprising a diffractive optical element ([0052], [0109], [0110] of Klug).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results in the selective reflective coating (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025 of Vallius) forms a diverter disposed on the first light guiding optical element (110, 128 of Crocco; 130, 330, 810, 910, 1010 of Vallius, 190, 1090, 2090 of Klug), and adjacent and spaced from the lens (100/104 of Crocco), wherein the diverter (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025 of Vallius) is configured to modify a light path of a second real-world light beam (Fig. 8-9 of Vallius), the second real-world light beam originating from an overhead position relative to a world side top (Fig. 8-9 of Vallius).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results in the tint comprises a gradient tint ([0027] of Crocco), and a combination of the diverter (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025 of Vallius) and the gradient tint ([0027] of Crocco) minimizes a rainbow effect generated from an inadvertent diffraction of the second real-world light beam by the first light guiding optical element (110, 128 of Crocco; 130, 330, 810, 910, 1010, [0030]-[0039] of Vallius, 190, 1090, 2090 of Klug).
Crocco does not explicitly teaches the transmission percentage through the lens gradually increasing in a linear fashion. Crocco also teaches the gradient tint “to provide predetermined areas of the lens 104 with increased opacity where portions of an augmented-reality image” ([0027]). In other words, Crocco teaches the manner of gradient tint is a design choice. Having the gradient tint transmission percentage through the lens gradually increasing in a linear fashion is an issue of design choice; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results in the diverter (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025 of Vallius) reflects the second real-world light beam (Fig. 8-10 of Vallius).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results in the diverter configured to refract or diffract the second real-world light beam (Fig. 8-10; [0030]-[0039] of Vallius).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results in the ink orientation markings are removable by wiping, after assembly ([0071], [0073], [0074], [0089] of Molinaro).
Regarding claim 25, neither Klug, Crocco, nor Molinaro teaches the orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) is a linear grating that is slanted in the lateral plane perpendicular to the light path.
Vallius teaches the orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) is a linear grating that is slanted in the lateral plane perpendicular to the light path (Fig. 5, [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro with slanted linear grating; because it “may eliminate a need for conventional functionalities for exit pupil expansion in an EPE such as collimating lenses.” ([0027] of Vallius).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug in view of Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro and in further view of Itani (US 20170168307 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro consequently results the tint being a coating that comprises gradient tint ([0027] of Crocco) but does not teach the gradient tint transmits: 1) less real-world light at a world side top portion of the lens (100/104 of Crocco) and transmits more real-world light at a world side bottom portion of the lens (100/104 of Crocco); or 2) more real-world light starting from the world side top portion of the lens (100/104) to the world side bottom portion of the lens (100/104 of Crocco); wherein rainbow artifacts, generated from inadvertent diffraction of an overhead real-world light by the light guiding optical element (110, 128 of Crocco), is minimized.
Crocco does not explicitly teaches the transmission percentage through the lens gradually increasing in a linear fashion. Crocco also teaches the gradient tint “to provide predetermined areas of the lens 104 with increased opacity where portions of an augmented-reality image” ([0027]). In other words, Crocco teaches the manner of gradient tint is a design choice. Having the gradient tint transmission percentage through the lens gradually increasing in a linear fashion is an issue of design choice; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Itani teaches a variable dimmer lens (1335A) that can control the level of light transmission of different regions of the lens independently (Fig. 13A, 13B; [0227]-[0234]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Klug in view of Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro such that gradient tint transmits less real-world light at a world side top portion of the lens and transmits more real-world light at a world side bottom portion of the lens or more real-world light starting from the world side top portion of the lens to the world side bottom portion of the lens; because it allows improved user experience.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug in view of Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro and in further view of Chu (US 9277988 B1).
Regarding claim 11, neither Klug, Crocco, Vallius nor Molinaro teaches the ink orientation markings comprise a special ink making the ink orientation markings visible under special lighting during assembly and not visible to a user during regular use.
Chu teaches a special ink making the ink orientation markings visible under special lighting during assembly and not visible to a user during regular use (col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Klug, Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro with Chu; because it allows hiding the ink orientation markings to improve useability of the augmented reality system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius, Molinaro and Chu consequently results in the special ink is an infrared ink (col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 10 of Chu).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Klug, Crocco, Vallius, Molinaro and Chu consequently results in the special ink is an ultraviolet ink (col. 3 line 42 – col. 4 line 10 of Chu).
Claims 15-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocco in view of Vallius and in further view of Molinaro.
Regarding claim 15, Crocco teaches an augmented reality system (Fig. 1-7F) comprising: a light guiding optical element (110, 128); a lens (100/104/102/110) having a duality of periphery surfaces at least one of said periphery surfaces being mounted to a frame (106, 126), the lens not contacting the light guiding optical element (110, 128; Fig. 1-3; [0025]-[0031]); and the frame (106, 126) having at least one support surface for mounting one of the periphery surfaces to the support surface of the frame (106, 126; Fig. 3), the lens (100/104/102/110) providing a protective element to optical elements of the augmented reality system (Fig. 1-3). Crocco also teaches a gradient tint ([0027]). Crocco further teaches the lens (100/104) further comprises orientation markings, wherein the orientation markings are used during assembly to mount the lens (100/104) onto an eyeglass frame (106/106, 126; Fig. 1-3) and ensure that the lens is oriented correctly in the eyeglass frame.
Crocco does not explicitly teach the gradient tint that transmits less real-world light at a world side top portion of the lens and transmits more real-world light at a world side bottom portion of the lens, wherein rainbow artifacts are minimize, the gradient tint and transmission percentage through the lens gradually increasing in a linear fashion.
Crocco also teaches the gradient tint “to provide predetermined areas of the lens 104 with increased opacity where portions of an augmented-reality image” ([0027]). In other words Crocco teaches the manner of gradient tint is a design choice. Having the gradient tint that transmits less real-world light at a world side top portion of the lens and transmits more real-world light at a world side bottom portion of the lens and transmission percentage through the lens gradually increasing in a linear fashion is an issue of design choice; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Crocco does not teach the duality of flat periphery surfaces orthogonal to one another, at least one of said periphery surfaces being substantially orthogonal to the frame, or the support surface of the frame being a flat surface.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have: the flat periphery surfaces orthogonal to one another, at least one of said periphery surfaces being substantially orthogonal to the frame, and the support surface of the frame being a flat surface. The Court has held that lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, change in shape of the device is prima facie obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Furthermore, having the flat periphery surfaces orthogonal to one another, at least one of said periphery surfaces being substantially orthogonal to the frame, and the support surface of the frame being a flat surface amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is deemed obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Crocco does not explicitly teach a selective reflective coating disposed an exterior surface of the light guiding optical element and adjacent and spaced from said lens, the selective reflective coating configured to modify a light path of a real-world light beam, said selective reflective coating being angularly selective such that the light guiding optical element is substantially transparent to real-world light with a low angle of incidence and highly reflective to oblique real-world light.
Vallius teaches a selective reflective coating (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025) disposed an exterior surface of the light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010), the selective reflective coating (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025) configured to modify a light path of a real-world light beam, said selective reflective coating being angularly selective such that the light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010) is substantially transparent to real-world light with a low angle of incidence and highly reflective to oblique real-world light ([0030], [0034], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Crocco with Vallius such that the diverter is adjacent to and spaced from the lens; because it limits strayed light affecting picture quality.
Neither Croccus nor Vallius teaches the lens further comprising ink orientation markings, wherein the ink orientation markings are used during assembly to mount the lens onto an eyeglass frame and ensure that the lens is oriented correctly in the eyeglass frame, the ink orientation markings disposed at east, north, and west locations relative to the lens and are removable by wiping, after assembly.
Molinaro teaches ink orientation markings, wherein the ink orientation markings (34, 35) are used during assembly to mount the lens (30) onto an eyeglass frame (11) and ensure that the lens is oriented correctly in the eyeglass frame (11), the ink orientation markings disposed at east, north, and west locations relative to the lens and are removable by wiping, after assembly ([0071], [0073], [0074], [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Crocco and Vallius with Molinaro; because it allows precise mounting of the lens to the frame to improve the alignment during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 16, Crocco, as combined with Vallius and Molinaro, further teaches the lens (100/104/102/110) being constructed with glass, plastic, metal, rubber, fabrics, composites, or other suitable materials configured to provide a desired level of light transmissivity ([0026]).
Trivex, a urethane-based pre-polymer with a refractive index of 1.53, is a known lens material (US 20150036221 A1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lens with Trivex; because it is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Crocco, as combined with Vallius and Molinaro, does not explicitly teach a center thickness of the lens (100/104/102/110) being 1.2 mm +/−0.2 mm.
Having the center thickness of the lens (100/104/102/110) being 1.2 mm +/−0.2 mm requires only routine skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the center thickness of the lens (100/104/102/110) being 1.2 mm +/−0.2 mm; because it is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Crocco, as combined with Vallius and Molinaro, does not explicitly teach the lens (100/104/102/110) having a radius of curvature of 86.8 mm +/−0.9 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the radius of curvature of 86.8 mm +/−0.9 mm; because it is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the combination of Crocco, Vallius, and Molinaro further teaches the selective reflective coating (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025 of Vallius) on the exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010 of Vallius), is adapted to selectively reflect overhead light sources from inadvertently being incoupled into the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010 of Vallius), wherein an outer face of one of the opposed periphery surfaces of the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010 of Vallius) comprises the exterior surface ([0030]-[0031], [0034], [0035] of Vallius).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Crocco, Vallius and Molinaro further teaches the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010 of Vallius) further includes an in-coupling grating (340 of Vallius) and wherein the first virtual light beam enters the first light guiding optical element via in-coupling grating ([0025] of Vallius).
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocco in view of Vallius and Molinaro and in further view of Rousseau (US 20180074322 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 24, Crocco further teaches the lens (100/104/102/110) comprises different coatings ([0026], [0027]) but does not explicitly teach coatings comprise: anti-smudge and mirror coatings.
It is well known in the art that coatings include anti-smudge and mirror coatings ([0130] of Rousseau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to include anti-smudge and mirror coatings; because it allows improve useability of the augmented reality system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug in view of Crocco and in further view of Vallius.
Regarding claim 23, Klug teaches an augmented reality system (100’, 100”, 1000, 2000; Fig. 1-35B; [0060]), comprising: a light source (120, 1020, 2020) configured to generate a virtual light beam, wherein the virtual light beam carries information for a virtual object; at least one light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) being transparent to a first real-world light beam, a plurality of beam splitters (162, 2026) adapted to split the virtual light beam into a plurality of virtual light beams including a first virtual light beam, and a plurality of liquid crystal (LC) shutters (164) that control when the at least one light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) is illuminated; wherein the first virtual light beam enters a first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) of said at least one light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), propagates through the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) by total internal reflection (TIR) whereby the first virtual light beam internally reflects only off of each of inner faces of opposed periphery surfaces of the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) and exits the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090; [0060]-[0064]); and wherein the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) includes an exit pupil expander (EPE) that expands the numerical aperture of the light source (120, 1020, 2020) such that an apparent size of a pupil of the first virtual light beam that exits the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) through the exit pupil expander and toward a user's eye appears enlarged, the exit pupil expander comprising a diffractive optical element, an orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) that, together with the EPE, expands light in orthogonal directions ([0052], [0109], [0110]).
Klug does not teach a lens disposed adjacent to and spaced from an external surface of the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), the lens not contacting the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), wherein the lens is configured with a tint that absorbs an amount of real-world light to allow a portion of the real-world light to transmit through the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090).
Crocco teaches a lens (100/104) disposed adjacent to and spaced from an external surface of the first light guiding optical element (110, 128), the lens (100/104) not contacting the first light guiding optical element (110, 128), wherein the lens (100/104) is configured with a tint that absorbs an amount of real-world light to allow a portion of the real-world light to transmit through the first light guiding optical element (110, 128; [0025]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Klug with Crocco; because it allows limiting environment light to improve viewing experience.
Neither Klug nor Crocco teaches the orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) comprising a linear grating that is slanted in the lateral plane perpendicular to the light path; or a selective reflective coating on the exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090), said selective reflective coating being angularly selective such that the first light guiding optical element (190, 1090, 2090) is substantially transparent to real-world light with a low angle of incidence and highly reflective to oblique real-world light.
Vallius teaches the orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) comprising a linear grating that is slanted in the lateral plane perpendicular to the light path (Fig. 5, [0027]-[0028]). Vallius also teaches a selective reflective coating (815, 900, 1015, 1020, 1025) on the exterior surface of the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010), said selective reflective coating being angularly selective such that the first light guiding optical element (130, 330, 810, 910, 1010) is substantially transparent to real-world light with a low angle of incidence and highly reflective to oblique real-world light ([0030], [0034], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Klug, Crocco with Vallius; because it “may eliminate a need for conventional functionalities for exit pupil expansion in an EPE such as collimating lenses.” ([0027] of Vallius) and limits strayed light affecting picture quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 23 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment/s of claims 1, 15, and 23.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882