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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 5/14/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 8, 13, 20-21, 26 and added claims 27-29.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species II, claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged. Election was made timely with traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27 recites “the second video stream is selected by the headset to be presented to the user by the implant in lieu of the first video stream based on one or more constraints of the implant”. There is no mention in the disclosure of selecting the second video stream based on one or more constraints of the implant.
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 8-20 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 8 recites the limitation " the control signal is distinct from and not encoded as image data of the video stream" in lines 14-15. It is not clear as to what signal the control signal is distinct from. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the control signal is distinct from a signal related to the video stream.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the control signal is distinct from and not encoded as image data of the video stream" in lines 14-15. It is not clear as to what signal the control signal is distinct from. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the control signal is distinct from a signal related to the video stream.
Claims 9-19 depend from claim 8 and are indefinite for the reason given above.
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 8-19 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”).
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, a video stream that includes a visual representation of an environment in which the headset is located; transmitting, via a wireless connection, the video stream to the implant that is inside an eye of the user, wherein the video stream 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, wherein the control signal is distinct from and not encoded as image data of the video stream.
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). It is noted that in the above modified method of Liran/Vaziri, the control signal (as taught by Vaziri) is only to deactivate the camera and is not encoded with image data and it is distinct from the video stream signal.
Regarding claim 9, Liran/Vaziri 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 discloses the method of claim 9.
Liran/Vaziri 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).
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 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 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 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).
Regarding claim 18, Liran/Vaziri discloses the method of claim 17, further comprises transmitting, via the wireless connection, an image to the implant to cause the image formation device to present the image ([0078] in Liran).
Regarding claim 19, Liran/Vaziri discloses the method of claim 8, wherein
the operations are performed by the headset ([0005] in Liran).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Vaziri in view of Calloway et al. (US 2021/0169578, hereinafter, “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, a video stream that includes a visual representation of an environment of the user; transmit, via a wireless connection, the video stream to the implant that is inside an eye of the user to display the video stream 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 determine that the micro-display is to display 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 dark background, wherein the control signal is distinct from and not encoded as image data of the video stream.
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 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 /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 /Calloway device, the control signal (as taught by Vaziri) is only to deactivate the camera and is not encoded with image data and it is distinct from the video stream signal.
Claims 21, 23-24, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, 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, a video stream that includes a visual representation of an environment in which the headset is located (Fig. 1, [0072]-[0075], [0078]-[0079]).
Liran 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 a 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 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/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/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/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 27, Liran/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 21, wherein
the second video stream is selected by the headset to be presented to the user by the implant in lieu of the first video stream based on one or more constraints of the implant ([0109] in Fitzgerald, “the compression process can take into account display data that is at least partially indicative of operation of the display device”, the display device of Liran/Fitzgerald is the implant, and the operation of the implant depends on its constraints).
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, Fitzgerald in view of Vaziri.
Regarding claim 22, Liran/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 21.
Liran/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/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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liran, Fitzgerald in view of Robaina et al. (US 2019/0011703, hereinafter, “Robaina”).
Regarding claim 25, Liran/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 24.
Liran/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/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/Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 25.
Liran/Fitzgerald does not disclose wherein the enhanced visual representation of the environment comprises a notification to notify the user of a presence of the object within the environment.
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/Fitzgerald so that the headset includes a proximity sensor receiving proximity data (indicating an object in the environment), the proximity data being transmitted as the second video stream to the implant to notify the user of a presence of an object in the environment, as taught by Robaina, for providing an indication of actions that the user may be undertaking (see [1669] in Robaina).
Regarding claim 29, Liran/Fitzgerald/Robaina discloses the method of claim 21, wherein
the difference in spatial representation, visual representation, or informational content comprises at least one of:
a different spatial representation, by zooming or cropping the first video stream;
a different visual representation, by changing brightness, contrast, or imaging modality of the first video stream; or
different informational content, by adding a notification, a highlight, or an
overlay to the first video stream ([0103] in Fitzgerald, [1669] in Robaina).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 8 (similarly for independent claim 20) Applicant stated that “Vaziri does not address intraocular implants, does not include an image formation device inside a user's eye, and does not teach transmitting a control signal from a headset to an implanted display to deactivate an image formation device”, and “This figure (i.e., Fig. 3B of Vaziri) shows gesture-based control of a camera's operation, but the controlled device (214) is an external scene camera, not an intraocular implant or an image formation device” see p. 11 of the Remarks.
Moreover, regarding Vaziri, Applicant stated “FIG. 19a is a gesture-to-action table mapping specific eye gestures (e.g., blink, short wink, long wink, fast blinks) of the left and right eyes to camera actions, such as toggle on/off camera, start/stop video, or upload recorded media. The deactivation applies only to the scene camera (214) or recording function. There is no teaching that the gesture causes an image formation device of an eye implant to be deactivated, nor that a headset transmits a control signal to an eye implant” and “FIG. 19b depicts the wireless link between the eye-tracking unit (212) and the camera (214), showing that gesture-derived commands are sent to control the camera. The transmitted commands control camera state (e.g., on/off, recording), but the figure does not disclose an eye implant, an intraocular image formation device, or a control signal distinct from image data used to deactivate an image formation device of an eye implant. In short, Vaziri teaches gesture-based control of recording devices, primarily cameras, but does not teach or suggest transmitting a control signal that deactivates an image forming device of an eye implant where the control signal is distinct from and not encoded as image data of the video stream. The simple stopping transmission of image data does not teach or suggest a control signal that is distinct from and not encoded as image data of the video stream”, see p. 11 of the remarks.
The Office notes that it was Liran who was cited for the above quoted features, not Vaziri.
Regarding independent claim 21, Applicant stated “In Fitzgerald, compression is expressly a transport-level encoding technique applied to image data so that the same visual scene can be decoded and rendered at the display. Fitzgerald does not teach or suggest generating a second video stream that is representationally different-spatially (e.g., zoomed/cropped), visually (e.g., brightness/contrast or modality changed), or informationally (e.g., augmented with
notifications) from a first video stream-and then substituting that second video stream in lieu of the captured first video stream for display to the user”, see p. 12 of the Remarks.
The Office notes that in Fitzgerald, the second video stream (the compressed version) is based on (i.e., in lieu of) the first video stream and it differs from the first video stream in information content (as it is claimed), ([0103] in Fitzgerald, the compressed video stream has discarded image data).
Applicant also stated “Fitzgerald does not disclose or contemplate a headset doing this generation of the second video stream which is then wirelessly transmitted to an implant of an intraocular system for display to the user. Fitzgerald instead relies on conventional wearable or external display devices”, see p. 13 of the Remarks
The Office notes that it was Liran who was cited for the above quoted feature, not Fitzgerald.
Finally, Applicant stated “The headset 20 of Liran also does not teach or suggest generating a second video stream that differs from the first video stream in at least one of spatial representation, visual representation, or informational content”, see p. 13 of the Remarks.
The Office notes that it was Fitzgerald who was cited for the above quoted feature, not Liran.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for the above reasons.
The rejection of claims 8 and 21 and their dependents is maintained. New dependent claims 27-29 are also rejected.
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 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 571-272-2434. 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
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights