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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 32-34 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/19/2025.
Response to Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 filed 12/01/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon the Masarik reference as set forth in the last Office action because:
Declarant merely states that “I met with representatives of Maztech and provided information that included subject matter that was later disclosed in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0372737, including for example FIGS. 4A-4C and paragraphs 0104-0113. I gave a presentation to Maztech on September 24, 2018 that included information pertaining to a Holographic Weapon Sight Design” and that “In another presentation I made to Maztech prior to 2019, also under a nondisclosure agreement, I described Applicant’s technology for Holographic Imageguide Displays, which included the following image.” However, this is insufficient to establish that the specific subject matter disclosed in the Masarik reference was entirely obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor.
Specifically, the field of “Holographic Weapon Sight Design” is a broad field, and there is no evidence provided to suggest that the information discussed in the cited meetings actually pertained to the disclosure of the 2021/0372737 publication. Rather, it appears that Declarant broadly discussed generic designs for holographic sights, which does not equate to a showing that the disclosure was obtained from the inventor. Furthermore, the figure provided by Declarant appears to broadly show a waveguide holographic display and is not equivalent to any of the disclosure of the Masarik reference. Contrary to the assertion by Declarant, the information provided in the declaration does not correspond to that of “for example FIGS. 4A-4C and paragraphs 0104-0113” of the Masarik reference, as those portions of the reference clearly describe wholly different systems than the one shown in the declaration. There is nothing in the declaration to suggest that the specifics of the disclosure of the Masarik reference were ever discussed between Declarant and Maztech.
Moreover, Declarant states that “Applicant and Maztech entered into a non-disclosure agreement effective as of May 18, 2018 covering the optical systems to be discussed” but provides no additional context, explanation, or evidence that any optical systems discussed include those actually disclosed by the Masarik reference. It has been held that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context, explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient. See EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982)
Finally, Declarant states that “Under the nondisclosure agreement and or any other agreements between Applicant and Maztech, Maztech did not have permission to disclose any information obtained from me, including through the filing of patent applications, relating to the above technology or any other confidential information.” As such, this statement appears to suggest that the information disclosed in the Masarik reference was not obtained by the inventor, as any information obtained from the inventor would appear to violate such an agreement. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the disclosure of the Masarik reference was obtained from the inventor, and the Masarik reference remains available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 12-13, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites that “the image generating element is a shadow mask.” However, it is unclear what constitutes a “shadow mask.” It is unclear if any mask is intended to be a “shadow mask” or if the claimed “shadow mask” is intended to form shadows in some other manner. For the purposes of examination, any mask will be interpreted as a “shadow mask.”
Claim 12 recites that “the image information is relayed from the image generating element to the image combiner window through a plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements without passing through spaces between the image generating element and the plurality of diffraction grating holographic elements or between the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements and the image combiner window.” However, it is unclear how the information can be relayed without passing through spaces between the elements. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require a vacuum space or if the claim is intended to require that the optical elements are physically contacting such that there is no gap between the elements. In the latter case, it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to the total internal reflection between the diffraction grating elements or to the entire optical path from the image generating element to the image combiner window.
For the purposes of examination, any imageguide element having diffraction grating optical elements physically formed in the imageguide such that light passes from an input to an output via total reflection entirely within the imageguide will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 18-21 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 12 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 13 further recites that “the image information is transmitted from the image combiner window to the user without reflection on a concave mirror.” However, it is unclear if the claim is intended to preclude a concave mirror only from the image combiner window to the user or if the claim is intended to preclude a concave mirror anywhere along the optical path from the image generating element to the user.
For the purposes of examination, any system that does not include a concave mirror between the image combiner window and the user will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Masarik et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0372737; hereinafter – “Masarik”).
Regarding claim 1, Masarik teaches an on-axis holographic sight comprising:
a base (205, 208, 210) configured to engage a mounting location (202) on an instrument having an optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0067, 0077-0087, 0104-107, 0114-0116, and 0128);
a light shield frame (208, 1615) attached to the base (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0086, 0088, 0106, 0109, and 0172);
an imageguide image combiner window (112, 114) contained within the frame and encompassing the optical axis of the instrument (See e.g. Figs. 2-3, 6-8, and 11-16; 0063, 0078, 0079, and 0132-0133); and
an imageguide display system (128, 130, 132) within the base and the frame and optically coupled to the image combiner window, the imageguide display system including a light source (128, 132, 572, 574), an image generating element (128, 132, 568, 571, 578, 580), a light coupling optical element (456, 462, 466), and an imageguide element (130, 454), wherein the light source is configured to direct light to the image generating element, wherein the image generating element is configured to project image information to the light coupling optical element, wherein the light coupling optical element is configured to transmit the image information into the imageguide element, and wherein the imageguide element is configured to direct the image information through the image combiner window such that a virtual image based on the image information is viewable by a user viewing a real-world scene through the image combiner window when the sight is attached to the instrument (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-5; Paragraphs 0063, 0071-0075, 0088, 0103-0121, 0123-0127, and 0166), and wherein the light source and the image generating element are positioned such that light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when traveling between the light source and the image generating element (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-5; Paragraphs 0071-0075, 0123-0127, and 0166 e.g. Paragraph 0071: “The scope may further include a first image projector 128 capable of generating and projecting a first image on an input image port. For example, the image projector 128 can be a video projector 128 that projects video images generated by the infrared 122 or visible 126 image sensors onto an input image port of a Direct-View display (DV-display) 130” and Paragraph 0124: “The reticle projector 132 can comprise an illuminator 572 (e.g., a laser diode), a reticle mask 568, and an imaging lens 570”).
Regarding claim 2, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches an eye-tracking system (838, 888), wherein the eye-tracking system is in communication with the imageguide display system (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-9; Paragraphs 0134, 0136, 0138, 0140, 0145 and 0157).
Regarding claim 3, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the sight is connected to a plurality of sensors (119), and wherein the plurality of sensors includes a motion sensor (884), a first light sensor (119, 122, 126, 726, 838, 882, 888) and a second light sensor (119, 122, 126, 726, 838, 882, 888 ) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 6-16; Paragraphs 0066-0067, 0071, 0073-0074, 0085, 0087-0088, 0095-0103, 0133-0140, 0143, 0145-0146, 0148, 0150, and 0156-0157).
Regarding claim 4, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 3, as above.
Masarik further teaches that image information is modulated based on light conditions determined by the first light sensor and the second light sensor (See e.g. Figs. 1, 9, and 10; 0066-0067, 0073-0074, 0087, 0103, 0113, 0116-0117, 0133-0134, 0138-0140, 0143, 0145-0146, 0148).
Regarding claim 5, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 4, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system is activated based on movement of the instrument detected by the motion sensor (884) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-9; Paragraphs 0087, 0134, and 0137-0140).
Regarding claim 6, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image generating element is a shadow mask (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0124-0127).
Regarding claim 7, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image generating element is a diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0118-0120 and 0126-0127).
Regarding claim 8, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light source is a laser (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0123-0126 and 0172).
Regarding claim 9, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 8, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light coupling optical element is a holographic optical element or a diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0064, 0104, 0107, 0113, and 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 10, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches a lens (466, 570) between the light source and the light coupling optical element (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0113 and 0124).
Regarding claim 11, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light coupling optical element is an input optical element (456, 462) optically coupled to the imageguide element and wherein an output optical element (458) is optically coupled to the imageguide element (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0106-0113).
Regarding claim 12, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image information is relayed from the image generating element to the image combiner window through a plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements without passing through spaces between the image generating element and the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements or between the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements and the image combiner window (See e.g. Fig. 3-4, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0106-0113).
Regarding claim 13, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image information is transmitted from the image combiner window to the user without reflection on a concave mirror (See e.g. Figs. 3-4, 5B, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0063, 0071-0075, 0088, 0103-0121, 0123-0127, and 0166).
Regarding claim 14, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image information includes a reticle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-5; Paragraphs 0072-0074, 0103-0117, and 0123-0128).
Regarding claim 15, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light source (128, 132, 572, 574) is on a side of the imageguide element opposite to that of a user of the instrument viewing the image combiner window (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 6-8, 11-12, and 15; Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0112-0114, and 0171).
Regarding claim 16, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light source (132, 572, 574) is on a side of the imageguide element that is the same as that of a user of the instrument viewing the image combiner window (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 6-8, 11-12, and 15; Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0112-0114, and 0171).
Regarding claim 17, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the combiner window attenuates less than 10% of broadband ambient visible light striking the combiner window (Paragraphs 0063 and 0079 – Masarik teaches that the window transmits greater than 60% or 80% of visible light and provides specific examples of materials that attenuate less than 10% of light, thus reading on Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claim 18, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that one of the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements includes a reflective coating on a first side opposite a second side, wherein the second side faces the light source (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0064, 0104, 0107, 0113, and 0118-0122).
Regarding claim 19, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements multiply the image information in an axis perpendicular to a grating vector (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 20, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements and imageguide element include a combination of gratings configured to multiply the image information along two axes (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 21, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 20, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the at least one of the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements includes two overlapping linear grating structures (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 22, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system further includes a diffraction grating holographic optical element (456, 458, 462) with dual-axis expansion, the diffraction grating holographic optical element including two overlapping linear grating structures, the overlapping linear grating structures including a first plurality of grating lines at a first angle and a second plurality grating lines at a second angle, wherein the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines intersect to form a pattern of holes or posts that are a superposition of the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 23, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 22, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines are perpendicular to each other (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 24, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system further includes a diffraction grating holographic optical element (456, 458, 462), the diffraction grating holographic optical element including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion include a diffracting structure formed by overlapping linear grating structures including a first plurality of grating lines at a first angle and a second plurality of grating lines at a second angle, wherein the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines intersect to form a pattern of holes or posts that are a superposition of the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines, and wherein the diffraction grating holographic optical element includes a third portion separating the first portion from the second portion, wherein the third portion is unruled (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 31, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the virtual image appears at a distance from the instrument when viewed by the user through the image combiner window (See e.g. Figs. 1-5 and 9-10; Paragraphs 0071-0077 and 0110).
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) 1-24 and 31 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masarik in view of Olmsted et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2017/0211910; hereinafter – “Olmsted”).
Regarding claim 1, Masarik teaches an on-axis holographic sight comprising:
a base (205, 208, 210) configured to engage a mounting location (202) on an instrument having an optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0067, 0077-0087, 0104-107, 0114-0116, and 0128);
a light shield frame (208, 1615) attached to the base (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0086, 0088, 0106, 0109, and 0172);
an imageguide image combiner window (112, 114) contained within the frame and encompassing the optical axis of the instrument (See e.g. Figs. 2-3, 6-8, and 11-16; 0063, 0078, 0079, and 0132-0133); and
an imageguide display system (128, 130, 132) within the base and the frame and optically coupled to the image combiner window, the imageguide display system including a light source (128, 572, 574), an image generating element (128, 568, 571, 578, 580), a light coupling optical element (456, 462, 466), and an imageguide element (130, 454), wherein the light source is configured to direct light to the image generating element, wherein the image generating element is configured to project image information to the light coupling optical element, wherein the light coupling optical element is configured to transmit the image information into the imageguide element, and wherein the imageguide element is configured to direct the image information through the image combiner window such that a virtual image based on the image information is viewable by a user viewing a real-world scene through the image combiner window when the sight is attached to the instrument (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-5; Paragraphs 0063, 0071-0075, 0088, 0103-0121, 0123-0127, and 0166), and wherein the light source and the image generating element are positioned such that light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when traveling between the light source and the image generating element (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-5; Paragraphs 0071-0075, 0123-0127, and 0166 e.g. Paragraph 0071: “The scope may further include a first image projector 128 capable of generating and projecting a first image on an input image port. For example, the image projector 128 can be a video projector 128 that projects video images generated by the infrared 122 or visible 126 image sensors onto an input image port of a Direct-View display (DV-display) 130” and Paragraph 0124: “The reticle projector 132 can comprise an illuminator 572 (e.g., a laser diode), a reticle mask 568, and an imaging lens 570”).
While Masarik teaches a structure reading on the claimed imageguide display system with the light source and the image generating element are positioned such that light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when traveling between the light source and the image generating element, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Olmsted.
Olmsted teaches a compact dynamic head up display comprising an imageguide image combiner window (30) contained within the frame and encompassing the optical axis of the instrument; and an imageguide display system within the base and the frame and optically coupled to the image combiner window, the imageguide display system including a light source (40) , an image generating element (60, 70), a light coupling optical element (62), and an imageguide element (30), wherein the light source is configured to direct light to the image generating element, wherein the image generating element is configured to project image information to the light coupling optical element, wherein the light coupling optical element is configured to transmit the image information into the imageguide element, and wherein the imageguide element is configured to direct the image information through the image combiner window such that a virtual image based on the image information is viewable by a user viewing a real-world scene through the image combiner window when the sight is attached to the instrument, and wherein the light source and the image generating element are positioned such that light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when traveling between the light source and the image generating element (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0027, 0031-0034, 0038-0039, and 0049).
Olmsted teaches this light source and image generating element with light travelling parallel to the optical axis therebetween to provide “a head up display that can present variable information such as map or GPS coordinates, compass headings, messages, distances to target, rounds fired, rounds remaining, and any other information that may be useful to a user of such a device that is compact, lightweight, and that can be cooperatively engaged with firearms” (Paragraph 0006) that “can be used to provide a head up display 10 that is to fit within a certain preferred range of heights H relative to a mounting structure of firearm 12” in order “to align the images visible at window 30 with other optical systems such as magnifiers, or to avoid blocking iron sights” (Paragraph 0047).
Therefore, even if Masarik did not disclose the claimed imageguide display system, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik such that the light source and image generating element are arranged so light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when traveling between the light source and the image generating element as in Olmsted to provide “a head up display that can present variable information such as map or GPS coordinates, compass headings, messages, distances to target, rounds fired, rounds remaining, and any other information that may be useful to a user of such a device that is compact, lightweight, and that can be cooperatively engaged with firearms” that “can be used to provide a head up display 10 that is to fit within a certain preferred range of heights H relative to a mounting structure of firearm 12” in order “to align the images visible at window 30 with other optical systems such as magnifiers, or to avoid blocking iron sights,” as taught by Olmsted (Paragraphs 0006 and 0047), and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 2, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches an eye-tracking system (838, 888), wherein the eye-tracking system is in communication with the imageguide display system (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-9; Paragraphs 0134, 0136, 0138, 0140, 0145 and 0157).
Regarding claim 3, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the sight is connected to a plurality of sensors (119), and wherein the plurality of sensors includes a motion sensor (884), a first light sensor (119, 122, 126, 726, 838, 882, 888) and a second light sensor (119, 122, 126, 726, 838, 882, 888 ) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 6-16; Paragraphs 0066-0067, 0071, 0073-0074, 0085, 0087-0088, 0095-0103, 0133-0140, 0143, 0145-0146, 0148, 0150, and 0156-0157).
Regarding claim 4, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 3, as above.
Masarik further teaches that image information is modulated based on light conditions determined by the first light sensor and the second light sensor (See e.g. Figs. 1, 9, and 10; 0066-0067, 0073-0074, 0087, 0103, 0113, 0116-0117, 0133-0134, 0138-0140, 0143, 0145-0146, 0148).
Regarding claim 5, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 4, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system is activated based on movement of the instrument detected by the motion sensor (884) (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 8-9; Paragraphs 0087, 0134, and 0137-0140).
Regarding claim 6, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image generating element is a shadow mask (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0124-0127).
Regarding claim 7, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image generating element is a diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0118-0120 and 0126-0127).
Regarding claim 8, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light source is a laser (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0123-0126 and 0172).
Regarding claim 9, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 8, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light coupling optical element is a holographic optical element or a diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0064, 0104, 0107, 0113, and 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 10, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches a lens (466, 570) between the light source and the light coupling optical element (See e.g. Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0113 and 0124).
Regarding claim 11, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light coupling optical element is an input optical element (456, 462) optically coupled to the imageguide element and wherein an output optical element (458) is optically coupled to the imageguide element (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0106-0113).
Regarding claim 12, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image information is relayed from the image generating element to the image combiner window through a plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements without passing through spaces between the image generating element and the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements or between the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements and the image combiner window (See e.g. Fig. 3-4, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0106-0113).
Regarding claim 13, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image information is transmitted from the image combiner window to the user without reflection on a concave mirror (See e.g. Figs. 3-4, 5B, 6-8, and 11-16; Paragraphs 0063, 0071-0075, 0088, 0103-0121, 0123-0127, and 0166).
Regarding claim 14, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the image information includes a reticle pattern (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-5; Paragraphs 0072-0074, 0103-0117, and 0123-0128).
Regarding claim 15, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light source (128, 132, 572, 574) is on a side of the imageguide element opposite to that of a user of the instrument viewing the image combiner window (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 6-8, 11-12, and 15; Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0112-0114, and 0171).
Regarding claim 16, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the light source (132, 572, 574) is on a side of the imageguide element that is the same as that of a user of the instrument viewing the image combiner window (See e.g. Figs. 3-5, 6-8, 11-12, and 15; Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0112-0114, and 0171).
Regarding claim 17, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the combiner window attenuates less than 10% of broadband ambient visible light striking the combiner window (Paragraphs 0063 and 0079 – Masarik teaches that the window transmits greater than 60% or 80% of visible light and provides specific examples of materials that attenuate less than 10% of light, thus reading on Applicant’s claimed range).
Additionally, even if the window of Masarik did not attenuate less than 10% of broadband ambient visible light, Masarik clearly teaches an overlapping range on the amount of light attenuated and teaches increasing the transmission “to facilitate displaying a video image to an observer while permitting the observer to see through the waveguide when the scope operates in a direct-view mode or a combined direct-view and video and/or thermal view mode” (Paragraph 0107).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik such that the window attenuates less than 10% of broadband ambient visible light as suggested by Masarik “to facilitate displaying a video image to an observer while permitting the observer to see through the waveguide when the scope operates in a direct-view mode or a combined direct-view and video and/or thermal view mode,” as in Masarik (Paragraph 0107), and since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Regarding claim 18, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that one of the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements includes a reflective coating on a first side opposite a second side, wherein the second side faces the light source (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0064, 0104, 0107, 0113, and 0118-0122).
Regarding claim 19, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements multiply the image information in an axis perpendicular to a grating vector (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 20, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements and imageguide element include a combination of gratings configured to multiply the image information along two axes (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 21, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 20, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the at least one of the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements includes two overlapping linear grating structures (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 22, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system further includes a diffraction grating holographic optical element (456, 458, 462) with dual-axis expansion, the diffraction grating holographic optical element including two overlapping linear grating structures, the overlapping linear grating structures including a first plurality of grating lines at a first angle and a second plurality grating lines at a second angle, wherein the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines intersect to form a pattern of holes or posts that are a superposition of the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 23, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 22, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines are perpendicular to each other (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 24, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system further includes a diffraction grating holographic optical element (456, 458, 462), the diffraction grating holographic optical element including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion include a diffracting structure formed by overlapping linear grating structures including a first plurality of grating lines at a first angle and a second plurality of grating lines at a second angle, wherein the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines intersect to form a pattern of holes or posts that are a superposition of the first plurality of grating lines and the second plurality of grating lines, and wherein the diffraction grating holographic optical element includes a third portion separating the first portion from the second portion, wherein the third portion is unruled (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Regarding claim 31, Masarik in view of Olmsted teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the virtual image appears at a distance from the instrument when viewed by the user through the image combiner window (See e.g. Figs. 1-5 and 9-10; Paragraphs 0071-0077 and 0110).
Claim(s) 17 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masarik.
Regarding claim 17, Masarik teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the combiner window attenuates less than 20% of broadband ambient visible light striking the combiner window (Paragraphs 0063, 0079, and 0107 – Masarik teaches that the window transmits greater than 60% or 80% of visible light and provides specific examples of materials that attenuate less than 10% of light, thus reading on Applicant’s claimed range).
Additionally, even if the window of Masarik did not attenuate less than 10% of broadband ambient visible light, Masarik clearly teaches an overlapping range on the amount of light attenuated and teaches increasing the transmission “to facilitate displaying a video image to an observer while permitting the observer to see through the waveguide when the scope operates in a direct-view mode or a combined direct-view and video and/or thermal view mode” (Paragraph 0107).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik such that the window attenuates less than 10% of broadband ambient visible light as suggested by Masarik “to facilitate displaying a video image to an observer while permitting the observer to see through the waveguide when the scope operates in a direct-view mode or a combined direct-view and video and/or thermal view mode,” as in Masarik (Paragraph 0107), and since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Claim(s) 19-24 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masarik or Masarik in view of Olmsted and further in view of Levola et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,160,411; hereinafter – “Levola”).
Regarding claim 19, Masarik and Masarik in view of Olmsted each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements multiply the image information in an axis perpendicular to a grating vector such that the user can see all of the virtual image in an increased eyebox in that axis (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Although Masarik teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Examiner further submits reference Levola.
Levola teaches comprising an imageguide display system having a light source, an image generating element, a light coupling optical element, an imageguide element, and a plurality of diffraction grating elements (10, 20, 30) wherein the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements multiply the image information in an axis perpendicular to a grating vector such that the user can see all of the virtual image in an increased eyebox in that axis (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 8; C. 3, L. 19 – C. 4, L. 48).
Levola teaches this plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements that multiplies the image information “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight” (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik with the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements that multiplies the image information as in Levola “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight,” as taught by Levola (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Regarding claim 20, Masarik and Masarik in view of Olmsted each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 12, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements and imageguide element together multiply the image information along two axes such that a user can see the image information in an increased eyebox in those axes (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Although Masarik teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Examiner further submits reference Levola.
Levola teaches comprising an imageguide display system having a light source, an image generating element, a light coupling optical element, an imageguide element, and a plurality of diffraction grating elements (10, 20, 30) wherein the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements and imageguide element together multiply the image information along two axes such that a user can see the image information in an increased eyebox in those axes (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 8; C. 3, L. 19 – C. 4, L. 48).
Levola teaches this plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements that multiplies the image information “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight” (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik with the plurality of diffraction grating holographic optical elements that multiplies the image information as in Levola “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight,” as taught by Levola (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Regarding claim 21, Masarik in view of Levola and Masarik in view of Olmsted and Levola each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 20, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the at least one of the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements has an outcoupling efficiency that varies in an axis of propagation of the image information such that a brightness of the virtual information is made uniform in the eyebox (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Additionally, Levola further teaches that the at least one of the plurality of diffraction grating optical elements has an outcoupling efficiency that varies in an axis of propagation of the image information such that a brightness of the virtual information is made uniform in the eyebox (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 8; C. 3, L. 19 – C. 4, L. 48; C. 5, L. 11-17).
Regarding claim 22, Masarik and Masarik in view of Olmsted each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system further includes a diffraction grating holographic optical element (456, 458, 462) with dual-axis expansion, the diffraction grating holographic optical element including two overlapping linear grating structures, the overlapping linear grating structures including a plurality of right slant grating lines and a plurality of left slant grating lines, wherein the plurality of right slant grating lines and the plurality of left slant grating lines form a pattern of holes or posts that are a superposition of the plurality of right slant grating lines and the plurality of left slant grating lines (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Although Masarik teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Examiner further submits reference Levola.
Levola teaches comprising an imageguide display system having a light source, an image generating element, a light coupling optical element, an imageguide element, and a diffraction grating holographic optical element (10, 20, 30) with dual-axis expansion, the diffraction grating holographic optical element including two overlapping linear grating structures, the overlapping linear grating structures including a plurality of right slant grating lines and a plurality of left slant grating lines, wherein the plurality of right slant grating lines and the plurality of left slant grating lines form a pattern of holes or posts that are a superposition of the plurality of right slant grating lines and the plurality of left slant grating lines (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 8; C. 3, L. 19 – C. 4, L. 48).
Levola teaches diffraction grating holographic optical element “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight” (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik with the diffraction grating holographic optical element of Levola “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight,” as taught by Levola (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Regarding claim 23, Masarik in view of Levola and Masarik in view of Olmsted and Levola each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 22, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the plurality of right slant grating lines and the plurality of left slant grating lines run at 45 degrees and are perpendicular to each other (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Additionally, Levola further teaches that the plurality of right slant grating lines and the plurality of left slant grating lines run at 45 degrees and are perpendicular to each other (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 8; C. 3, L. 19 – C. 4, L. 48; C. 7, L. 15-22).
Regarding claim 24, Masarik and Masarik in view of Olmsted each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik further teaches that the imageguide display system further includes a diffraction grating holographic optical element (456, 458, 462), the diffraction grating holographic optical element including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion include a diffracting structure that is equivalent to the superposition of a plurality of right slant rulings and a plurality of left slant rulings, wherein the plurality of right slant rulings and the plurality of left slant rulings run in a pattern of holes or posts, and wherein the diffraction grating holographic optical element includes a third portion separating the first portion from the second portion, wherein the third portion is unruled (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0118-0120).
Although Masarik teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Examiner further submits reference Levola.
Levola teaches comprising an imageguide display system having a light source, an image generating element, a light coupling optical element, an imageguide element, and a diffraction grating holographic optical element (10, 20, 30) the diffraction grating holographic optical element including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion include a diffracting structure that is equivalent to the superposition of a plurality of right slant rulings and a plurality of left slant rulings, wherein the plurality of right slant rulings and the plurality of left slant rulings run in a pattern of holes or posts, and wherein the diffraction grating holographic optical element includes a third portion separating the first portion from the second portion, wherein the third portion is unruled (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 8; C. 3, L. 19 – C. 4, L. 48).
Levola teaches diffraction grating holographic optical element “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight” (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik with the diffraction grating holographic optical element of Levola “to provide a diffractive beam expander for expanding a light beam in two dimensions” such that “The micro-display and the imaging optics may be made even smaller and/or lightweight,” as taught by Levola (C. 1, L. 31-46).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masarik or Masarik in view of Olmsted and further in view of Tai et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,483,362).
Regarding claim 25, Masarik and Masarik in view of Olmsted each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 1, as above.
Masarik fails to explicitly disclose that the imageguide display system further includes an achromatic aspheric lens configured to collimate light from the light source into a well spherically and chromatically corrected beam.
However, Tai teaches a compact holographic sight comprising an imageguide display system that includes a light source (32), an image generating element (44), a light coupling optical element (36), an imageguide element (30), and an achromatic aspheric lens (34) configured to collimate light from the light source into a well spherically and chromatically corrected beam (See e.g. Figs. 2-3 and 5-8; C. 3, L. 23-40; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 7, L. 3-20).
Tai teaches this achromatic aspheric lens “to provide a sight which utilizes a low cost laser diode that is not emission wavelength stabilized by using an achromatizing means to compensate for wavelength drifts” (C. 2, L. 61-64) and “to provide near perfect wavelength compensation in a more compact, low profile design” (C. 7, L. 3-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik with the achromatic aspheric lens of Tai “to provide a sight which utilizes a low cost laser diode that is not emission wavelength stabilized by using an achromatizing means to compensate for wavelength drifts” and “to provide near perfect wavelength compensation in a more compact, low profile design,” as taught by Tai (C. 2, L. 61-64; C. 7, L. 3-20).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masarik or Masarik in view of Olmsted and further in view of Kuerbitz (U.S. Patent No. 7,443,494).
Regarding claim 26, Masarik and Masarik in view of Olmsted each teaches the on-axis holographic sight of claim 8, as above.
Masarik fails to explicitly disclose that the imageguide display system further includes a toroidal lens configured to collimate light from the laser into a uniform beam with radially symmetric divergence.
However, Kuerbitz teaches an apparatus and method for detecting optical systems in a terrain comprising an imageguide display system that includes a laser light source (42), an image generating element (42), a light coupling optical element (46), an imageguide element (60), and a toroidal lens (44) configured to collimate light from the laser into a uniform beam with radially symmetric divergence (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 4, L. 35-40; C. 6, L. 54-63).
Kuerbitz teaches this toroidal lens “for transforming the oval illumination spot into a circular shape” (C. 6, L. 54-63) to provide “a method and an apparatus shall be provided, which, by means of a compact and lightweight instrument, permits to localize an optical system, in particular a gunner, prior to the firing of a projectile, wherein the instrument preferably displays the position of the optical system or of the gunner, respectively, in a conventional telescope” (C. 2, L. 47-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the on-axis holographic sight of Masarik with the toroidal lens of Kuerbitz “for transforming the oval illumination spot into a circular shape” to provide “a method and an apparatus shall be provided, which, by means of a compact and lightweight instrument, permits to localize an optical system, in particular a gunner, prior to the firing of a projectile, wherein the instrument preferably displays the position of the optical system or of the gunner, respectively, in a conventional telescope,” as taught by Kuerbitz (C. 2, L. 47-55; C. 6, L. 54-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/01/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6, 12-13, and 18-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims address the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. However, as detailed previously and above, the claims remain indefinite as the limitations that are indefinite have not been addressed.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 12/01/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Masarik fails to disclose that “the light source and the image generating element are positioned such that light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when traveling between the light source and the image generating element” because “In Masairk, images to be displayed are generated by projectors rather than an image generating optical element that receives light from a separate light source.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, any “projector” that displays an image as contended by Applicant will necessarily include an image generating optical element and a light source to operate. For example, Paragraph 0071 or Masarik describes that “The scope may further include a first image projector 128 capable of generating and projecting a first image on an input image port. For example, the image projector 128 can be a video projector 128 that projects video images generated by the infrared 122 or visible 126 image sensors onto an input image port of a Direct-View display (DV-display) 130.” Such a video projector necessarily includes the claimed light source and image generating element.
Moreover, Examiner notes that Masarik’s “reticle projector 132” also reads on the claimed “imageguide display system including a light source” and “an image generating element.” Specifically, as can be seen in Fig. 5B of Masarik and described in Paragraphs 0124-0125, “The reticle projector 132 can comprise an illuminator 572 (e.g., a laser diode), a reticle mask 568, and an imaging lens 570.” As such, illuminator 572 reads on the claimed light source and reticle mask 568 reads on the claimed image generating element and light from the light source is parallel to the optical axis when travelling between the two, as can be seen in Figs. 3 and 5B.
Thus, Examiner maintains that Masarik teaches the requisite light source and image generating element, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Applicant further argues that “Masarik is not prior art to the claimed invention – and in particular claim 1 a amended – because the subject matter appearing in the Masarik application was obtained directly from the inventor of the present application.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the declaration merely states that the inventor and applicant of Masarik broadly discussed generic holographic display elements with no evidence provided to suggest that the inventor and the applicant of Masarik ever discussed the specifics of the subject matter disclosed in the Masarik reference. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the disclosure of the Masarik reference was obtained from the inventor, and the Masarik reference remains available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Furthermore, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner submits reference Olmsted. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 12/01/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered and are additionally moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Masarik and Olmsted, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and detailed above.
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 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 Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896