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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues that incorporating Thakur’s waveguide into Shibata would require removing Shibata’s transparent screen and replacing its reflective HUD architecture with a fundamentally different diffractive waveguide architecture, thereby changing Shibata’s principle of operation. Applicant argues that the references do not explain how the holographic coupling would be integrated into Shibata’s reflective HUD, how Shibata’s shutter would function in the reconfigured system, or how the necessary optical paths, coupling conditions, and alignment constraints would be redesigned. Applicant therefore alleges no reasonable expectation of success. Applicant argues that Shibata concerns glare suppression, Lapstun concerns Multiview light-field generation, and Thakur provides only generalized statements regarding pupil expansion efficiency. Applicant therefore contends that there is no specific reason to combine these disparate teachings. Applicant argues that selectively extracting features from the references would still not yield the claimed invention and constitutes hindsight reconstruction. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable because the independent claims are patentable and because of their additional limitations. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. "In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
Regarding applicant argument that incorporating Thakur’s waveguide into Shibata would require removing Shibata’s transparent screen and replacing its reflective HUD architecture with a fundamentally different diffractive waveguide architecture, thereby changing Shibata’s principle of operation. Applicants argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 and incorrectly assumes bodily incorporated of Lapstun’s entire systems into Shibata. Claim 1 does not require an exclusively diffractive architecture, prohibit mirrors of a transparent combiner, or require holographic coupling both into and out of the waveguide. Rather claim 1 requires only “at least one hologram” that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide. The proposed combination therefore does not require removing Shibata’s reflective HUD arrangement. Shibata may retain its display, reflective components, transparent screen, and anti-glare shutter while incorporating Thakur’s two dimensional pupil expanding waveguide and Lapstun’s holographic input-coupling teaching. The resulting device would continue generating a virtual image and suppressing unwanted glare, consistent with Shibata’s intended operation. Established in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the motivation to modify or combine prior art references does not require explicit statements in the references themselves; it can be inferred from the nature of the problem to be solved or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. The rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
Regarding applicant argument that the references do not explain how the holographic coupling would be integrated into Shibata’s reflective HUD, how Shibata’s shutter would function in the reconfigured system, or how the necessary optical paths, coupling conditions, and alignment constraints would be redesigned. Applicant therefore alleges no reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it assumes structural and operational requirements that are not recited in claim 1. The claim does not specify coupling angles, polarization conditions, alignment tolerances, focal relationships, grating parameters or any particular relationship between the hologram and Shibata’s reflective element. Additionally, claim 1 merely requires the anti-glare element to be “arranged downstream of the optical waveguide in a beam path”. It does not require that the recited beam path be the image-light path, the image light exiting the waveguide subsequently pass through the shutter, or that the shutter be incorporated into Lapstun’s waveguide architecture. Shibata’s shutter therefore may retain its disclosure glare suppression function in the viewing beam path. Thakur demonstrates two-dimensional pupil expansion using an optical waveguide, while Lapstun demonstrates holographic coupling of display light into a waveguide. Applicant has not identified evidence that these known optical functions are technically incompatible. The assertion regarding necessary redesign and unsuccessful operation are unsupported attorney arguments concerning unclaimed implementation details. [A]rguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding applicant argument that that Shibata concerns glare suppression, Lapstun concerns Multiview light-field generation, and Thakur provides only generalized statements regarding pupil expansion efficiency. Applicant therefore contends that there is no specific reason to combine these disparate teachings. Applicants argument is not persuasive merely because the references emphasize different problems. The references are all directed to optical display systems and are relied upon for complementary teachings: Shibata for a virtual image display and anti-glare arrangement, Thakur for two-dimensional exit pupil expansion using an optical waveguide, and Lapstun for holographic coupling of display light into an optical waveguide. Thakur’s pupil expansion teaching is directly relevant to improving the viewing region of Shibata’s virtual image display. It would have been obvious to incorporate Thakur’s two dimensional pupil expanding waveguide into Shibata’s display to enlarge the exit pupil, thereby allowing the displayed image to remain visible over a greater range of occupant eye positions improving viewing comfort. It further would have been obvious to use Lapstun’s hologram as a known input coupling mechanism for coupling display light into that waveguide, whit the hologram performing its known function and producing the predicable result of directing the display light into the waveguide. Examiner notes that all the references are directly related to the same field, optical components. Optical components such as lenses, waveguides, mirrors, filters, coating and other devices designed to manipulate light, are all part of a specialized area of study and application (In re Clay,966 F.2d 656,658,23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
Regarding applicant argument that selectively extracting features from the references would still not yield the claimed invention and constitutes hindsight reconstruction. Applicants argument is not persuasive because applicant does not identify any particular limitation of claim 1 that remains absent from the combined teachings. As set forth in the rejection, Shibata teaches the virtual image display and anti-glare shutter arrangement; Thakur teaches an optical waveguide that expands an exit pupil in two dimensions; and Lapstun teaches a hologram that couples display light into an optical waveguide. Applicants arguments appear to require the recited components to form their particular unified optical architecture illustrated in Applicants specification. Claim 1 does not impose that requirement. In particular, it does not require that image light exiting the pupil expanding waveguide pass through the anti-glare shutter. The rejection therefore relies upon the express teachings and identified benefits of the references, rather than applicants disclosure as the sole guide.
Regarding applicant argument that that the dependent claims are patentable because the independent claims are patentable and because of their additional limitations. Applicants argument is not persuasive because it does not separately identify any error in the rejection of the additional limitations of the dependent claims. The argument concerning the independent claims have been addressed above, and the rejection of each dependent claim is maintained for the reasons previously stated.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515, of record) in view of Lapstun (US 2016/0139402, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses a device for generating a virtual image (Figures: 3, 9), comprising: a display element ([0111] discloses: 42A, HUD) for generating an image ([0083] discloses: Light, an image, from HUD main body is radiated to the HUD display area D1 of 421, transparent screen); an optical waveguide ([0111] discloses: 421, transparent screen; [0084] discloses: 421, transparent screen, may be configured as a transparent combiner; therefore considered a waveguide); and an anti-glare element ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter, transmittance can be lowered, by adjusting voltage, the occupant can be prevented from viewing the reflected light of the light pattern radiated on the road surface; therefore considered to be an anti-glare element) arranged downstream of the optical waveguide in a beam path (Figure 9 depicts: field of view of occupant, beam path traveling from the eye to the road, first passing through 421, transparent screen, that is considered the waveguide, then through 63, shutter, considered the anti-glare element), wherein the anti-glare element is a shutter ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter).
Shibata fails to disclose a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions comprising at least one hologram that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide. Shibata and Thakur are related because both disclose waveguides.
Thakur teaches a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions ([0023] teaches: waveguide may expand the exit pupil in either one or two dimensions depending on the waveguide structure).Shibata and Lapstun are related because both disclose optical waveguides.
Lapstun teaches a device comprising at least one hologram that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide ([0804] teaches: hologram used to couple ray into the waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Thakur and Laptsun and provide disclose a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions comprising at least one hologram that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide. Doing so would allow for allow for better viewing experience and optical efficiency in two dimensions, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 8, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide has an output coupling hologram (Mills: [0030] teaches: image projection apparatus; therefore considered a hologram, projects it output into a waveguide for coupling to an output pupil of the display) which couples out light at an angle deviating from the normal on the exit surface of the optical waveguide (Mills: Figure 9 depicts: a paraxial projection system with asymmetric illumination; therefore considered coupling light at an angle deviating from the normal; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515, of record) in view of Lapstun (US 2016/0139402, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Vasylyev (US 9,194,552, of record).
Regarding claim 2, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Shibata fails to disclose a device wherein the shutter comprises slats whose height is at least n times their thickness, where n is a first factor with n>10. However, choosing an optimal height ration for a shutter is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design a shutter that comprises slats whose height is at least n times their thickness since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Vasylyev (US 9,194,552) discloses in Col. 8 lines 14-16 that the aspect ratio is preferably greater than at least ten or more, to improve directional control of light and suppress unwanted scattering. Accordingly, adopting a comparable height/thickness ration in the shutter slats of the present invention would have been a predictable design choice. Therefore, the claimed use of a shutter comprising slats whose height is at least n times their thickness represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515, of record) in view of Lapstun (US 2016/0139402, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bellwood et al. (US 2009/0242142, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Shibata fails to discloses device wherein the shutter is arranged in a frame in which slats are fixed at a fixed distance from one another. Shibata and Bellwood are related because both disclose display devices.
Bellwood teaches a device wherein the shutter is arranged in a frame (Figure 2 depicts: shutters arranges in a fixed frame) in which slats are fixed at a fixed distance from one another ([0011] discloses: 46, micro-louver, defining 60, vertical fixed reference point, 46 micro-louver is positioned so as to extend parallel to a plane defined by first and second opposing side members 6 and 7, the remaining micro-louvers…are positioned at variable angles relative to 60, vertical fixed reference point; Examiner notes that each louver is considered to be mounted in a defined angular position relative to the fixed reference; therefore considered fixed at a fixed distance from one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Bellwood and provide wherein the shutter is arranged in a frame in which slats are fixed at a fixed distance from one another. Doing so would allow for a stable, uniform and durable light blocking structure for display devices (Bellwood: 0011-0013).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515, of record) in view of Lapstun (US 2016/0139402, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 10,857,946, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Shibata fails to disclose wherein a slat of the shutter consists of a fabric of individual carbon fibers. Shibata and Taniguchi are related because both disclose shutters.
Taniguchi teaches wherein a slat of the shutter consists of a fabric of individual carbon fibers (Col. 3 lines 50-55 teaches: continuous fiber carbon fiber reinforced pre-preg material; Examiner notes that this is considered to be fabric of individual carbon fibers consistent with the disclosure specification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Taniguchi and provide wherein a slat of the shutter consists of a fabric of individual carbon fibers. Doing so would allow for high stiffness, low weight and dimensional stability, thereby improving the overall durability and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 5, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the fabric is fixed at both ends (Taniguchi: Figure 3 depicts: shutters will be fixed at both ends by 15, pair of side plates; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 4, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the fabric is fixed by stabilizers (Taniguchi: Col. 10 lines 45-60 teach: 9, retaining rings) arranged at both ends of the fabric and held in position by guide elements (Taniguchi: Col. 10 lines 45-60 teach: 43, shaft portions; Col. 10 lines 45-60 teach: 43, shaft portions and 9, retaining members are fixed to 6, shutter base via 9, retaining rings; therefore considered the carbon fiber is fixed by stabilizers arranged at both ends of the fabric held in position by the guide elements; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 4, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515, of record) in view of Lapstun (US 2016/0139402, of record) in view of Vasylyev (US 9,194,552, of record), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Bellwood et al. (US 2009/0242142, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata discloses the device as claimed in claim 2.
Shibata fails to disclose a device wherein the slats are aligned by an alignment element. Shibata and Bellwood are related because both disclose display devices.
Bellwood teaches a device wherein the slats are aligned by an alignment element ([0011] discloses: 46, micro-louver, defining 60, vertical fixed reference point, 46 micro-louver is positioned so as to extend parallel to a plane defined by first and second opposing side members 6 and 7, the remaining micro-louvers…are positioned at variable angles relative to 60, vertical fixed reference point; therefore considered aligned by an alignment element 60, vertical fixed reference point).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Bellwood and provide a device wherein the slats are aligned by an alignment element. Shibata and Bellwood are related because both disclose display devices. Doing so would allow for better optical uniformity, mechanical stability and manufacturability, thereby improving the overall functionality and durability of the optical system.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2021/0347259, of record) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2019/0339515, of record) in view of Lapstun (US 2016/0139402, of record) in view of Lacoste et al. (US 2012/0002256, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Shibata discloses a head-up display ([0111] discloses: 42A, HUD), comprising: a device for generating a virtual image ([0083] discloses: Light, an image, from HUD main body is radiated to the HUD display area D1 of 421, transparent screen; therefore considered a virtual image), comprising: a display element for generating an image ([0083] discloses: Light, an image, from HUD main body is radiated to the HUD display area D1 of 421, transparent screen); an optical waveguide ([0111] discloses: 421, transparent screen; [0084] discloses: 421, transparent screen, may be configured as a transparent combiner; therefore considered a waveguide); and an anti-glare element ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter, transmittance can be lowered, by adjusting voltage, the occupant can be prevented from viewing the reflected light of the light pattern radiated on the road surface; therefore considered to be an anti-glare element) arranged downstream of the optical waveguide in a beam path (Figure 9 depicts: field of view of occupant, beam path traveling from the eye to the road, first passing through 421, transparent scree, that is considered the waveguide, then through 63, shutter, considered the anti-glare element), wherein the anti-glare element is a shutter ([0111] discloses: 63, shutter); and the shutter is aligned in accordance with the direction of the light emanating from the optical waveguide (Figure 9 depicts: 63, shutter, aligned in accordance with the direction of light from 421, transparent screen, that is considered the optical waveguide; Figure 9 depicts from left to right of Figure, 63, shutter and then 421, transparent screen, therefor considered aligned in accordance with emanating light from waveguide).
Shibata fails to disclose a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions comprising at least one hologram that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide, and a and a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Shibata and Thakur are related because both disclose waveguides.
Thakur teaches a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions ([0023] teaches: waveguide may expand the exit pupil in either one or two dimensions depending on the waveguide structure).
Lapstun teaches a device comprising at least one hologram that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide ([0804] teaches: hologram used to couple ray into the waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Thakur and Laptsun and provide a device with an optical waveguide for expanding an exit pupil in two dimensions comprising at least one hologram that couples light directly from the display element into the optical waveguide. Doing so would allow for allow for better viewing experience and optical efficiency in two dimensions, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
The modified Shibata fails to disclose a device with a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Shibata and Lacoste are related because both disclose optical systems.
Lacoste teaches a device with a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle (see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 3 of Lacoste).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Lacoste and provide a device with a mirror unit, wherein the light emanating from the optical waveguide is incident on the mirror unit at a specified angle. Doing so would allow for improved optical control and light manipulation, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
941
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 11, Shibata discloses the head-up display as claimed in claim 10, wherein the head-up display generates the virtual image for a driver of the vehicle (Figure 9 depicts: the head-up display generates the virtual image for a driver of the vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a folding hologram configured to expand the exit pupil in a first direction and propagate light within the optical waveguide along a second direction; and an output coupling hologram configured to expand the exit pupil in the second direction” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 12 and 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a folding hologram configured to expand the exit pupil in a first direction and propagate light within the optical waveguide along a second direction; and an output coupling hologram configured to expand the exit pupil in the second direction” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 14 and 10, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Compact Prosecution
Applicant is encouraged to amend claim 1 to specify that the anti-glare element is arranged downstream of the optical waveguide in the beam path of the image light output from the optical waveguide, such that the image light passes through the anti-glare element after exiting the optical waveguide.
Examiner notes that claim 1 presently recites only “a beam path” without connecting the path to the generated image light. An amendment expressly requiring the anti-glare element to be positioned in the path of the image light output from the optical waveguide would potentially overcome the current rejection of reference, provided the amendment is supported by the original disclosure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights