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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the light field beam being split into two beams by the beam splitter of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the combiner element 122 in Figures 12 and 13 as described in Paragraph 0029-0034 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims state “deposed” when describing the location of objects within the device. These claims should be amended to say “disposed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim states the limitation “each beam of said light field is split into two beams by said beam splitter” in the last three lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear because in the provided Figures, the beam that contacts the beam splitter (the planar lens) is not split into two beams. It instead remains one beam and is directed to the curved mirror as such. If the beam is supposed to be split into two beams, what happens to the second beam that is not reflected by the combiner? Though the specification describes the split beams as claimed, since the figures do not show said split beams, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the limitation of split beams to be met so long as there is a beam splitter which directs light from a light generator to a combiner.
Regarding claim 2, claim states the limitation “optimized to maintain angular relations” in lines 3 and 10 of the claim. This limitation is unclear because the term “angular relations” is neither defined by the specification nor shown in the figures – what is meant by “angular relations”? Is it the angular relationship between the two beams when they contact the combiner? Is it the angular coordinates of the beams? Or are the angular relations between the emitted beams defined as something else? Also, what constitutes “optimized”? Due to the indefinite nature of this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the above limitations to be met so long as light is directed into the eye.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said emitting sub-areas" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome if either the dependency of claim 7 is amended to claim 2 or “said emitting sub-areas” is amended to say “emitting sub-areas”.
Regarding claim 7, claim states the limitation “a total width” when describing the size of the beams emitted from emitting sub-areas of the light field generator. This limitation is unclear because the total width of the beams is not established in the device nor shown in the figures, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, the beams will be interpreted as rays, which are infinitely thin and thus will have a total width not bigger than the size of a pupil. Therefore, so long the beams are being directed into an eye, this limitation will be considered met.
Regarding claim 9, claim states the limitation “a distance between a beam splitter of said birdbath eyepiece and said relay lens” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This limitation is unclear because the beam splitter and the relay lens each have their own structure – they aren’t just two points. Each structure extends in various directions that each would constitute different distances measured from different points of those structures. So where on the beam splitter and the relay lens is this distance measured between? Neither the instant specification nor the figures specify where on the beam splitter and the relay lens the distance is measured from. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the beam splitter and the relay lens are within the same device, this limitation will necessarily be met.
Regarding claims 10-11, claim states the limitation “fusion plane” in line 2 and “extended fusion plane” in line 7 of claim 10 and line 4 of claim 11. These limitations are unclear because what a fusion plane exactly is or its optical significance is indefinite. According to paragraph 0025 of the instant specification, the fusion plane is formed when beams emitted from all sub-areas of the light field generator converge at a common point, and all common points for all those positions form the fusion plane. In Figure 5, the fusion plane (14) is shown as a line drawn perpendicular to the direction of light along one common point – but there is only one common point shown in the figures. There are no figures or examples that show more than one common point - if the fusion plane is formed over multiple common points, how is the fusion plane formed with only one common point, and what defines the direction of the fusion plane? Due to the indefinite nature of this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the structure of claim 1 is met, a fusion plane will be considered part of said structure.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the focal length of a combiner" in the line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome if “the focal length of a combiner” is amended to say “a focal length of the combiner”.
Regarding claim 12, claim states the limitation “said birdbath eyepiece has a depth of field (DOF) of at least two diopters” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to what has a depth of field of at least two diopters. Depth of field is a linear distance, it is not measured in diopters. Is this measurement supposed to be the depth of field, or is it some other value that is measured in diopters? Also, what is the structure of the device that leads such a depth of field? Due to the nature of this claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(g)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the structure of claim 1 is taught, such a DOF is necessarily met.
Also, claims 3-6, 8, and 12-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haseltine et. al US 20170219826 (hereinafter “Haseltine”).
Regarding claim 1, Haseltine teaches a near-eye light field augmented reality (AR) display (Haseltine fig. 4, 6-10), comprising
a light field generator (Haseltine fig. 8 – 210, 215), generating a light field as an output (Haseltine fig. 8 - 330); and
a birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine fig. 8 – 810, 715, 815), connecting to said light field generator (210, 215) to receive said light field from said light field generator and projecting said light field to human eye (Haseltine fig. 8), wherein said birdbath eyepiece (810, 715, 815) comprises a beam splitter (Haseltine fig. 8 - 810) and a combiner (Haseltine fig. 8 - 715); and each beam of said light field is split into two beams by said beam splitter (810) with one of said two beams reflected by said combiner (Haseltine fig. 8 – 330 contacts 810, then moves through 815 and is reflected off 715 toward the eye).
Regarding claim 2, Haseltine teaches the display (Haseltine fig. 4, 6-10) according to claim 1,
wherein said combiner (715) has parameters optimized to maintain angular relations between said beams emitted from different emitting sub-areas of said light field generator having the same spatial coordinates but different angular coordinates (Haseltine fig. 8 – 715 directs light to the eye 415); and
wherein said birdbath eyepiece (810, 715, 815) maintains a structure of said light field as said beams of said light field with the same spatial coordinates but different angular coordinates maintain angular relations thereof on passing through said birdbath eyepiece to reach retina of said human eye (Haseltine fig. 8 – 330 moves through 810, 815, and 715 and is directed towards eye 415).
Regarding claim 3, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1 (Haseltine fig. 4, 6-10),
wherein said birdbath eyepiece (810, 815, 715) has a plurality of positions and orientations of said beam splitter (810) and said combiner (715) to be combined with said light field generator (Haseltine fig. 4-10 have various configurations aside from 800 for the beam splitter and the combiner combined with the light field generator).
Regarding claim 4, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 3,
wherein said light field generator (215) is deposed above said birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine fig. 8); said combiner (715) is deposed in front of human eye (Haseltine fig. 8); a light field generated by said light field generator (215) from above is received by said birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine fig. 8 – 330 is received by 810, 815, and 715); and beams of said light field projected from above are split by said beam splitter (810) with split beams reflected by said combiner (715), and then projected to said human eye (Haseltine fig. 8 – light from 215 is directed through 810, 815, 715, and projected to eye 415).
Regarding claim 5, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 3, and Haseltine further teaches
wherein said light field generator (215) is deposed above said birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine fig. 8; Haseltine fig. 10); said combiner (Haseltine fig. 10 - 1015) is deposed below human eye (Haseltine fig. 10 – 1015 is disposed below 415); a light field generated by said light field generator (215) from above is received by said birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine fig. 8; Haseltine fig. 10); and beams of said light field projected from above are split by said beam splitter (815) with split beams reflected by said combiner (715), and then projected to said human eye (Haseltine fig. 8; Haseltine fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 3, and Haseltine further teaches
wherein said light field generator (215) is deposed at a side of a spectacle along a frame of the display (Haseltine fig. 2 – 215 is placed into 230 on a front side of a headset along a frame of 215); said combiner (715) is deposed in front of human eye (Haseltine fig. 8); a light field generated by said light field generator (215) from above is received by said birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine fig. 8 – 330 is received by 810, 815, and 715); and beams of said light field projected from above are split by said beam splitter (810) with split beams reflected by said combiner (715), and then projected to said human eye (Haseltine fig. 8 – light from 215 is directed through 810, 815, 715, and projected to eye 415).
Regarding claim 7, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1, and Haseltine further teaches
wherein said beams (330) emitted from a point of any of said emitting sub-areas of said light field generator (215) and reflected by said combiner have a total width not bigger than the size of a pupil of said human eye when said beams pass through said pupil (Haseltine fig. 8 – 745 is smaller than the pupil of 415, see also para. 0055 which details the incident light).
Regarding claim 12, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1, and Haseltine further teaches
wherein said birdbath eyepiece (815, 810, 715) has a depth of field (DOF) of at least 2 diopters (Haseltine fig. 8 teaches the structure of claim 1, therefore it would necessarily have a DOF as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1, and Haseltine further teaches
wherein said beam splitter (815) is a planar lens (Haseltine fig. 8 – 815 is flat).
Regarding claim 14, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1, and Haseltine further teaches
wherein said combiner (715) is a curved mirror (Haseltine fig. 8 – 715 is curved, see also para. 0054 – 715 is a mirror).
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haseltine et. al US US 20110075257 (hereinafter “Hua”).
Regarding claim 1, Hua teaches a near-eye light field augmented reality (AR) display (Hua fig. 1, 28-29), comprising
a light field generator (Hua fig. 1 – 12), generating a light field as an output (Hua fig. 1); and
a birdbath eyepiece (Hua fig. 1 – 16, 18), connecting to said light field generator (12) to receive said light field from said light field generator (12) and projecting said light field to human eye (Hua fig. 1 – light from 12 is projected to eye 15), wherein said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) comprises a beam splitter (Hua fig. 1 - 16) and a combiner (Hua fig. 1 - 18); and each beam of said light field is split into two beams by said beam splitter (16) with one of said two beams reflected by said combiner (Hua fig. 1 – light from 12 moves through 16, is reflected to 18, then goes to 15, see also para. 0088).
Regarding claim 2, Hua teaches the display (Hua fig. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein said combiner (18) has parameters optimized to maintain angular relations between said beams emitted from different emitting sub-areas of said light field generator (12) having the same spatial coordinates but different angular coordinates (Hua fig. 1 – 18 directs light to the eye 15); and
wherein said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) maintains a structure of said light field as said beams of said light field with the same spatial coordinates but different angular coordinates maintain angular relations thereof on passing through said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) to reach retina of said human eye (Hua fig. 1 – light passes from 12 to 16, 18, then to 15).
Regarding claim 5, Hua teaches the display according to claim 3, and Hua further teaches
wherein said light field generator (Hua fig. 27 – microdisplay, see also para. 0070) is deposed above said birdbath eyepiece (Hua fig. 27 – the microdisplay is disposed above the beamsplitter and the spherical mirror, see also para. 0070); said combiner (Hua fig. 27 – spherical mirror, see also para. 0070) is deposed below human eye (Hua fig. 27); a light field generated by said light field generator (microdisplay) from above is received by said birdbath eyepiece (Hua fig. 27 – beamsplitter and microdisplay, see also para. 0070); and beams of said light field projected from above are split by said beam splitter (Hua fig. 27 - beamsplitter) with split beams reflected by said combiner (Hua fig. 27 - spherical mirror), and then projected to said human eye (Hua fig. 27).
Regarding claim 7, Hua teaches the display according to claim 1, and Hua further teaches
wherein said beams (330) emitted from a point of any of said emitting sub-areas of said light field generator (215) and reflected by said combiner have a total width not bigger than the size of a pupil of said human eye when said beams pass through said pupil (Hua fig. 8 – 745 is smaller than the pupil of 415, see also para. 0055 which details the incident light).
Regarding claim 8, Hua teaches the display according to claim 1, and Hua further teaches
wherein a relay lens (Hua fig. 1 – 14, see also para. 0088) is deposed in an optical path between said light field generator (12) and said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18; see Hua fig. 1) to extend said optical path with field of view (FOV) expanded.
Regarding claim 9, Hua teaches the display according to claim 8, and Hua further teaches
wherein a distance between a beam splitter of said birdbath eyepiece and said relay lens is extended to be 25 millimeters (mm) to 40 mm (Hua teaches a device with both a beam splitter a relay lens, therefore this limitation is considered met).
Regarding claim 12, Hua teaches the display according to claim 1, and Hua further teaches
wherein said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) has a depth of field (DOF) of at least 2 diopters (Hua fig. 1 teaches the structure of claim 1, therefore it would necessarily have a DOF as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Hua teaches the display according to claim 1, and Hua further teaches
wherein said beam splitter (16) is a planar lens (Hua fig. 1 – 16 is flat).
Regarding claim 14, Hua teaches the display according to claim 1,
wherein said combiner (18) is a curved mirror (Hua fig. 1 – 18 is curved, see also para. 0086 and 0088).
Regarding claim 15, Hua teaches the display according to claim 1, and Hua further teaches
wherein a reflection mirror (Hua fig. 1 – 14, see also para. 0088, says that 14 is actually 14a and 14b and para. 0091, says that the accommodation lens 14a may be a reflective element such as a mirror) is deposed in an optical path between said light field generator (12) and said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) to bend said optical path (Hua fig. 1 – 14 is disposed between 12 and 16 and 18).
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 8-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haseltine as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hua (as cited above).
Regarding claim 8, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1.
Haseltine does not specify that there is a relay lens disposed between the light field generator and the birdbath eyepiece, though Haseltine does teach a light field generator (215) and a birdbath eyepiece (815, 810, 715).
In the same field of endeavor, Hua teaches wherein a relay lens (Hua fig. 1 – 14, placed between 12 and 16 and 18 on the optical path) is deposed in an optical path between said light field generator (Hua fig. 1 - 12) and said birdbath eyepiece (Hua fig. 1 – 16 and 18, see also para. 0088) to extend said optical path with field of view (FOV) expanded for the purpose of forming an intermediate image of the light pattern (Hua para. 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a relay lens in order to form an intermediate image of the light pattern (Hua para. 0025).
Regarding claim 9, Haseltine and Hua teach the display according to claim 8, and they further teach
wherein a distance between a beam splitter (Hua fig. 1 – 16) of said birdbath eyepiece (Hua 16 and 18) and said relay lens (Hua 14) is extended to be 25 millimeters (mm) to 40 mm (both the beam splitter and the relay lens are within the same device of Hua, therefore this limitation is considered met).
Regarding claim 10, Haseltine and Hua teach the display according to claim 8, and they further teach
wherein said light field generator (Haseltine 215; Hua 12) projects a fusion plane (Haseltine fig. 8 – teaches the structure of claim 1, see also claim 1 rejection above) as an imaging plane of said light field extended by said relay lens (Hua 14).
Haseltine and Hua do not specify whether wherein the focal length of a combiner in said birdbath eyepiece is not smaller than the distance between said extended fusion plane and said combiner along said optical path, however they do teach a combiner (Haseltine 715) and a fusion plane (Haseltine fig. 8 teaches the structure of claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the focal length of the combiner greater than or equal to the distance between the fusion plane and the combiner, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Haseltine and Hua teach the display according to claim 10.
Haseltine and Hua do not specify whether wherein the entry pupil diameter of said birdbath eyepiece is not smaller than the cross-section of said light field at said fusion plane to fully receive said light field generated by said light field generator, however Haseltine and Hua do teach a birdbath eyepiece (Haseltine 815, 810, 715; Hua 16, 18) and a light field generator (Haseltine 215, Hua 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an entry pupil diameter of the birdbath eyepiece greater than or equal to the cross-section of the light field at the fusion plane, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Haseltine teaches the display according to claim 1, and Haseltine further teaches
The light field generator (215) and the birdbath eyepiece (815, 810, 715).
Haseltine does not specify that there is a reflection mirror disposed between the light field generator and the birdbath eyepiece.
In the same field of endeavor, Hua teaches wherein a reflection mirror (Hua fig. 1 – 14, see also para. 0088, says that 14 is actually 14a and 14b and para. 0091, says that the accommodation lens 14a may be a reflective element such as a mirror) is deposed in an optical path between said light field generator and said birdbath eyepiece to bend said optical path (Hua fig. 1 – 14 is disposed between 12 and 16 and 18).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Hua teaches the display according to claim 8, and Hua further teaches
wherein said light field generator (12) projects a fusion plane (Hua fig. 1 – provides the structure of claim 1) as an imaging plane of said light field extended by said relay lens (14).
Hua does not specify wherein the focal length of a combiner (18) in said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) is not smaller than the distance between said extended fusion plane (Hua fig. 1 – part of the structure) and said combiner (18) along said optical path, however Hua does teach the components of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a focal length of a combiner greater than or equal to the distance between the fusion plane and the combiner, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Hua teaches the display according to claim 10.
Hua does not specify wherein the entry pupil diameter of said birdbath eyepiece (16, 18) is not smaller than the cross-section of said light field at said fusion plane (Hua fig. 1 – part of the structure) to fully receive said light field generated by said light field generator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an entry pupil diameter of the birdbath eyepiece larger than or equal to the cross-section of the light field at the fusion plane, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spitzer US Patent 5,886,822, teaches a device similar to the instant application;
Haseltine et. al US Patent 10,459,230 and US Patent 12,386,177, patents of Haseltine et. al US 20170219826;
Robbins et. al US 20180081322, teaches a device similar to the instant application showing multiple light beams;
Gao et. al US 20140177023, teaches a device similar to the instant application;
Border et. al US 20160154244, teaches a device similar to the instant application;
Takeyama US 6,342,871, teaches a device similar to the instant invention, also discusses focal length of a concave mirror.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6:30 pm ET.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872