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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s response of 9/2/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1, 18, 20, 29, cancelled claims 19, 27 and added claim 30.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/164,484 filed on 2/3/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, has been overcome.
The rejection of claims 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran et al. (US 2020/0038247, hereinafter, “Liran”) in view of Vaziri (US 2017/0330042, hereinafter, “Vaziri”) and Kuleshov et al. (US 2022/0257928, hereinafter, “Kuleshov”).
Regarding claim 8, Liran discloses a method performed by a headset 20 that is part of an intraocular system, wherein the intraocular system comprises an implant 30 that includes an image formation device 130 (Fig. 1, [0072]), the method comprising:
capturing, by a camera 40 of the headset that is being worn by a user, an image that includes a visual representation of an environment in which the headset is located; transmitting, via a wireless connection, the image to the implant that is inside an eye of the user, wherein the image is for presentation by the image formation device (Fig. 1, 2A, [0072]-[0075], [0078]-[0079]);
Liran does not disclose detecting a gesture performed by the user; determining whether the image formation device is to be deactivated or remain active based on the detected gesture; and transmitting, via the wireless connection and responsive to determining that the image formation device is to be deactivated, a control signal to the implant to cause the image formation device to change an operational state to a deactivated state.
Vaziri discloses a wearable camera 214 that records scene images and its operation, for example, being ON or OFF, toggling, uploading is controlled by a user gesture, for example, eye gesture (Fig. 3b, 19a, 19b, [0045], [0100]).
Both Liran and Vaziri disclose wearable smart cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, is deactivated, based on gestures by the user, as taught by Vaziri, for easier decoding of the user’s intensions (see [0100] in Vaziri).
Liran/Vaziri does not disclose the camera capturing a video stream and transmitting the video stream to the implant. In the Liran/Vaziri device, the camera captures still images.
Kuleshov discloses a visual-cortical prosthesis apparatus (Fig. 5, [0012]). In Kuleshov, two cameras 2 built in a hoop 1 worn by the user capture video streams of the environment and transmit the video stream via an antenna 4 to an implant 11 in the brain (Fig. 1, 4, 5, [0013], [0026]-[0028], [0042], [0067]).
Both Liran and Kuleshov disclose wearable smart cameras employing implanted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, includes capturing of video streams representative of the environment, as taught by Kuleshov, for better perception of the environment (see [0051] in Kuleshov).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify Liran so that the received video stream can be processed, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 9, Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein
the camera is a first camera 214 that has a first field-of-view (FOV) directed away from the user when the headset is worn by the user (Fig. 40 in Liran), wherein the headset comprises a second camera 212 that has a second FOV directed towards the eye of the user when the headset is worn by the user, wherein detecting the gesture comprises performing a gesture detection algorithm to detect an eye gesture of the eye of the user (Fig. 3b, 19a, [0100] in Vaziri).
Regarding claim 10, Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 9.
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov does not disclose wherein the image formation device is determined to be deactivated when the eye gesture is a gaze for a period of time.
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses that when one eye is open for a period of time (e.g., gaze), and the other eye is closed (e.g., long wink), the camera is deactivated (toggle Off) (Fig. 19a, [0100] in Vaziri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, is deactivated, based on both eyes being open, for easier decoding of the user’s intensions, i.e., not mistakenly assuming one eye is closed.
Regarding claim 11, Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 9, wherein
the image formation device is determined to be deactivated when the eye gesture is a series of blinks or winks (Fig. 19a in Vaziri).
Regarding claim 12, Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 9, wherein
the second FOV is directed towards both eyes of the user (Fig. 3b, [0100] in Vaziri).
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov does not disclose wherein the eye gesture comprises both eyes
closing,
wherein the image formation device is determined to be deactivated responsive to determining that both eyes are closed and remain closed for a period of time.
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses that when one eye is closed for a period of time (long wink), and the other eye is open, the camera is deactivated (toggle Off) (Fig. 19a, [0100] in Vaziri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, is deactivated, based on long wink of both eyes, for easier decoding of the user’s intensions, i.e., not mistakenly assuming one eye is open.
Regarding claim 13, Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 12, wherein
the eye gesture is a first gesture, wherein the method further comprises detecting a second gesture performed by the user (a hand gesture, [0118] in Vaziri), wherein the image formation device is determined to remain active despite both eyes being closed responsive to detecting the second gesture (Fig. 19a in Vaziri. When both eyes are closed (blink) the camera remains active (ignore natural blink) and can be controlled by a hand gesture).
Regarding claim 14, Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein
the eye is a first eye (left eye), and the gesture is a first gesture (open), wherein the control signal is a first control signal, wherein the gesture comprises the second eye (right eye) of the user closing (long wink) (Fig. 19a in Liran), wherein the method further comprises:
detecting an eye-closure condition within the environment ([0062] in Vaziri, a road condition that causes low visibility);
determining whether the user has performed a second gesture (a hand gesture, [0118] in Vaziri);
responsive to determining that the user has performed the second gesture, the detecting of the eye-closure condition, and that the user's second eye is closed, determining that the image formation device is to be deactivated (Fig. 19a in Vaziri, toggle Off camera).
Regarding claim 15, Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 14, wherein
determining that the image formation device is to be deactivated comprises ceasing to transmit the video stream to the implant ([0078] in Liran).
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov does not disclose wherein the method further comprises, determining that the image formation device is to remain active responsive to determining that the user has not performed the second gesture, the detecting of the eye-closure condition, and that the user's second eye is closed; and responsive to determining that the image formation device is to remain active, continuing to transmit the video stream to the implant for presentation by the image formation device.
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses determining that the image formation device is to remain inactive responsive to determining that the user has performed the second gesture, the detecting of the eye-closure condition, and that the user's second eye is closed (see claim 14 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov so that the camera is active if the user has not performed the second (hand) gesture, in addition to the eye-closure condition and the second eye being closed, for maintaining user assistance to a user whose first eye is blind.
Regarding claim 16, Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 14, wherein
the eye-closure condition comprises at least one of an environmental condition that causes low visibility ([0062] in Vaziri, a road condition that causes low visibility), and a lighting condition with a brightness that exceeds a threshold.
Regarding claim 17, Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 8, wherein
the control signal causes the image formation device to be deactivated by instructing the image formation device to cease displaying the video stream ([0079] in Liran. When the camera 40 is Off, the display 130 ceases to display a video stream).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Vaziri, Kuleshov and Calloway et al. (US 2021/0169578, hereinafter, “Calloway”).
Regarding claim 18, Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising determining that the eye is closed (Fig. 19a in Vaziri);
Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov does not disclose causing the image formation device to present a static image with a dark background.
Calloway discloses an augmented reality headset ([0030]). In one embodiment, Calloway discloses that the display screen may have dark backgrounds (i.e., with no light stimulus) (Fig. 15, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov so that the micro-display 130 comprises a dark background, as taught by Calloway, for reducing the amount of incident ambient light passing therethrough ([0107] in Calloway).
It is noted that in the above Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov/Calloway device, the operation (i.e., the implementation of the dark background) is achieved by the detected gesture (as taught by Vaziri). In addition, in the above Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov/Calloway device, in one embodiment, a static image is sent to the implant ([0005] in Liran).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Vaziri, Kuleshov in view of Calloway.
Regarding claim 20, Liran discloses a headset 20 comprising:
a camera 40 (Fig. 1, [0073]);
a processor ([0078]);
memory ([0004]) having stored therein instructions which when executed by the processor causes the headset to:
capture, by the camera and while the headset is worn by a user, an image that includes a visual representation of an environment of the user; transmit, via a wireless connection, the image to the implant that is inside an eye of the user to display the image on a micro-display (Fig. 1, [0072]-[0075], [0078]-[0079]).
Liran does not disclose detect a gesture performed by the user.
Vaziri discloses a wearable camera 214 that records scene images and its operation, for example, being ON or OFF, toggling, uploading is controlled by a user gesture, for example, eye gesture (Fig. 3b, 19a, 19b, [0045], [0100]).
Both Liran and Vaziri disclose wearable smart cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of image formation device 130, is controlled, based on gestures by the user, as taught by Vaziri, for easier decoding of the user’s intensions (see [0100] in Vaziri).
Liran/Vaziri does not disclose the camera capturing a video stream and transmitting the video stream to the implant. In the Liran/Vaziri device, the camera captures still images.
Kuleshov discloses a visual-cortical prosthesis apparatus (Fig. 5, [0012]). In Kuleshov, two cameras 2 built in a hoop 1 worn by the user capture video streams of the environment and transmit the video stream via an antenna 4 to an implant 11 in the brain (Fig. 1, 4, 5, [0013], [0026]-[0028], [0042], [0067]).
Both Liran and Kuleshov disclose wearable smart cameras employing implanted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, includes capturing of video streams representative of the environment, as taught by Kuleshov, for better perception of the environment (see [0051] in Kuleshov).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify Liran so that the received video stream can be processed, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov does not disclose determine that the micro-display is to display a static image with a dark background with no light stimulus based on the detected gesture; and transmit, via the wireless connection, a control signal to the implant to cause the micro-display to display the static image with the dark background.
Calloway discloses an augmented reality headset ([0030]). In one embodiment, Calloway discloses that the display screen may have dark backgrounds (i.e., with no light stimulus) (Fig. 15, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov so that the micro-display 130 comprises a dark background, as taught by Calloway, for reducing the amount of incident ambient light passing therethrough ([0107] in Calloway).
It is noted that in the above Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov/Calloway device, the operation (i.e., the implementation of the dark background) is achieved by the detected gesture (as taught by Vaziri). In addition, in the above Liran/Vaziri/ Kuleshov/Calloway device, in one embodiment, a static image is sent to the implant ([0005] in Liran).
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov/Calloway does not disclose wherein the detected eye gesture comprises both eyes closing.
Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov/Calloway discloses that when one eye is closed for a period of time (long wink), and the other eye is open, the camera is deactivated (toggle Off) (Fig. 19a, [0100] in Vaziri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Vaziri/Kuleshov so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, is initiated, based on long wink of both eyes, for easier decoding of the user’s intensions, i.e., not mistakenly assuming one eye is open.
Claims 21, 23-24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Kuleshov, in view of Fitzgerald et al. (US 2020/0280739, hereinafter, “Fitzgerald”).
Regarding claim 21, Liran discloses a method performed by a headset 20 that is part of an intraocular system, wherein the intraocular system comprises an implant 30 that includes an image formation device 130, the method comprising:
capturing, by a camera 40 of the headset that is being worn by a user, an image that includes a visual representation of an environment in which the headset is located (and sending to the implant) (Fig. 1, [0072]-[0075], [0078]-[0079]).
Liran does not disclose the camera capturing a video stream (and transmitting the video stream to the implant). In the Liran device, the camera captures still images.
Kuleshov discloses a visual-cortical prosthesis apparatus (Fig. 5, [0012]). In Kuleshov, two cameras 2 built in a hoop 1 worn by the user capture video streams of the environment and transmit the video stream via an antenna 4 to an implant 11 in the brain (Fig. 1, 4, 5, [0013], [0026]-[0028], [0042], [0067]).
Both Liran and Kuleshov disclose wearable smart cameras employing implanted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of the image formation device 130, includes capturing of video streams representative of the environment (and sending to the implant), as taught by Kuleshov, for better perception of the environment (see [0051] in Kuleshov).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify Liran so that the received video stream can be processed, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Liran/Kuleshov does not disclose generating, by the headset, a second video stream based on the first video stream for presentation by the image formation device of the implant, wherein the second video stream differs from the first video stream in at least one of spatial representation, visual representation, or informational content; transmitting, via a wireless connection, the second video stream from the headset to the implant that is inside an eye of the user, and presenting the second video stream to the user output from the image formation device.
Fitzgerald discloses a method for displaying images forming part of a digital stream (Abstract). In one embodiment, Fitzgerald discloses that a display device generates a first video stream (display data) (step 110), followed by creating a second (compressed) video stream (step 113) and transmitting the second video stream (step 114) (Fig. 1B, [0118]-[0122]).
Both Liran and Fitzgerald disclose devices for virtual, augmented or mixed reality applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/Kuleshov so that the camera 20 transmits a compressed version of the captured first video stream, as taught by Fitzgerald, for transmission of the image data with a reduced bandwidth and low latency, allowing for wireless transmission of digital reality content (see [0001] in Fitzgerald).
It is noted that in the above notified method of Liran/Kuleshov/Fitzgerald, the second video stream (the compressed version) is based on the first video stream, and it differs from the first video stream in information content ([0103] in Fitzgerald, the compressed video stream has discarded image data).
Regarding claim 23, Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 21, wherein
the second video stream is an enhancement of the first video stream ([0271] in Fitzgerald, the second video stream is used for advanced, virtual, augmented or mixed reality applications).
Regarding claim 24, Liran/Kuleshov/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the second video stream includes an enhanced visual representation of the
environment. ([0271] in Fitzgerald).
Regarding claim 28, Liran/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 21, wherein
generating the second video stream based on the first video stream comprises:
processing the first video stream by the headset, prior to wireless transmission of
the second video stream to the implant, to reduce at least one of a data rate, a decoding complexity, or a power consumption of the second video stream relative to the first video stream during presentation of the second video stream by the implant ([0100] in Fitzgerald, “thereby optimizing the compression process for each image, thereby helping to ensure that bandwidth and latency requirements are met”, bandwidth is related to data rate).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Kuleshov, Fitzgerald in view of Vaziri.
Regarding claim 22, Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 21.
Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald does not disclose, further comprising:
detecting a gesture performed by the user; determining whether the image formation device is to be deactivated or remain active based on the detected gesture; and transmitting, via the wireless connection and responsive to determining that the image formation device is to be deactivated, a control signal to the implant to cause the image formation device to deactivate.
Vaziri discloses a wearable camera 214 that records scene images and its operation, for example, being ON or OFF, toggling, uploading is controlled by a user gesture, for example, eye gesture (Fig. 3b, 19a, 19b, [0045], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald so that the operation of the camera 40, and therefore the operation of image formation device 130, is activated/deactivated, based on gestures by the user, as taught by Vaziri, for easier decoding of the user’s intensions (see [0100] in Vaziri).
Claims 25, 26, 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Kuleshov, Fitzgerald in view of Robaina et al. (US 2019/0011703, hereinafter, “Robaina”).
Regarding claim 25, Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 24.
Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald does not disclose further comprising:
receiving, from a proximity sensor of the headset, proximity data that indicates a distance from an object within the environment; and determining that the second video stream is to include the enhancement of the first video stream based on whether the distance is within a threshold distance.
Robaina discloses a head mounted display (HMD) (Abstract). In one embodiment, Robaina discloses that the HMD 2010 may comprise environment sensors 34, e.g., proximity sensors, to detect objects in the user’s environment (Fig. 10B, [1669]).
Both Liran and Robaina disclose devices for virtual, augmented or mixed reality
applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald so that the headset includes a proximity sensor receiving proximity data (indicating distance from an object in the environment) and based on the indicated distance transmitting the compressed video stream to the implant, as taught by Robaina, for providing an indication of actions that the user may be undertaking (see [1669] in Robaina).
Regarding claim 26, Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald/Robaina discloses the method of claim 25, wherein
the enhanced visual representation of the environment comprises a notification to notify the user of a presence of the object within the environment ([1669] in Robaina, the proximity data being is transmitted as the second video stream to the implant to notify the user of a presence of an object in the environment).
Regarding claim 29, Liran/Kuleshov/Fitzgerald/Robaina discloses the method of claim 21, wherein
the difference in spatial representation, visual representation, or informational content comprises a different spatial representation, by zooming or cropping the first video stream ([0103] in Fitzgerald, discarding parts of an image is cropping).
Regarding claim 30, Liran/Kuleshov/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 21, wherein
wherein generating the second video stream comprises using an object recognition algorithm to detect an object in the first video stream ([0048] in Kuleshov).
Liran/Kuleshov/Fitzgerald does not disclose highlighting a region surrounding the detected object.
Robaina discloses a head mounted display (HMD) (Abstract). In one embodiment, Robaina discloses that the HMD 2010 may comprise environment sensors 34, e.g., proximity sensors, to detect objects in the user’s environment (Fig. 10B, [1669]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liran/ Kuleshov/Fitzgerald so that a region surrounding the detected object is highlighted, as taught by Robaina, for easy identification of the detected object ([1669] in Robaina, the proximity data is transmitted to the implant to notify the user of a presence of an object in the environment).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 18 (similarly for independent claims 20, 21), Applicant stated “However, Liran does not disclose transmitting a video stream to the intraocular apparatus. Instead, Liran specifically and consistently refers only to a single image that is not part of any video stream… Liran does not describe processing of video streams in any of these paragraphs. Instead, Liran again refers only to a single image”, see p. 10 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kuleshov.
Moreover, Applicant stated “At no point does Liran disclose or suggest that any video is transmitted to the intraocular apparatus. Indeed, Liran does not appear to disclose circuitry in the intraocular apparatus that would even be capable of processing a video stream, even if such a transmission were attempted. Instead, Liran specifically and consistently refers to processing image data only into a single image, which involves significantly less processing complexity and compute resources than processing video”, see p. 11 of the Remarks.
The Office has addressed the above argument in the rejection of claim 8.
The rejection of dependent claims 9-18, 22-26, 28-30 (depending on claims 8 and 21) is maintained based on the rejection of claims 8 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2334. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights