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 the communication filed 12/11/2025.
Amendments to the drawings, to the specification, and to claims 1-12 and 14-15, filed 12/11/2025, are acknowledged and accepted. Due to the amendments, the prior drawing objections and claim objections are now withdrawn. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are mostly withdrawn except for remaining issues associated with claim 5. Objection to the specification is maintained as various issues continue to persist in the latest amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/11/2025, have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive. The Remarks are addressed as follows:
On pgs. 7-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Waldern does not disclose claim 1’s display comprising an exit pupil expander comprising an outcoupling element configured to outcouple light in a forward direction towards a user and also in a backward direction away from the user. Examiner disagrees and refers Applicant back to the annotated FIG. 2; the outcoupling part is labeled and shown with light rays clearly escapes in both forward and backward directions. The fact that FIG. 2 shows “light… emitted from only one side of the optical substrate 201” (pg. 8, Remarks) is entirely irrelevant, since Examiner never identified optical substrate 201 as exclusively corresponding to the claimed outcoupling element – which Applicant appears to have mistakenly assumed.
On pg. 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Waldern does not disclose claim 1’s dynamically controllable reflector configured to provide selective reflection for light outcoupled from the exit pupil expander – asserting that “The dynamically controllable reflector as recited in claim is not the same as a switchable Bragg grating, as alleged by the Examiner”. However, Examiner notes that Applicant plainly misrepresents the Non-Final Rejection here. Rather than justify the improper argument with a response, Examiner will simply note that the switchable Bragg grating alone was never identified with the dynamically controllable reflector. Applicant can refer to item 21.B of the Non-Final Rejection (also quoted on pg. 8 of Applicant’s own Remarks) and see this to be the case – or they may again refer back to annotated FIG. 2, where the dynamically controllable reflector is labeled and shown to encompass portions of the optical substrate 201, the birefringent grating 208, and the birefringence control layer 209.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Waldern does not disclose (amended) claim 1’s wherein the light is selectively directed because “Waldern has birefringent gratings that direct output (206B, 207B in Figure 2 and 308, 309 in Figure 3) to the front without selectively reflecting off a reflective surface”.
Setting aside Applicant’s reference to certain details of Waldern’s disclosure, Applicant’s argument here is not particularly clear or coherent as they first argue against “selective direction” before pivoting to “selective reflection” – which are two clearly separate aspects of the claim limitation. Applicant then argues various additional details (“light being selectively directed to the user, as in claim 1, means that…”) which are largely irrelevant to the argued part(s?) of the claim – these merely establishing selective direction (and/or reflection?) – or the manner in which the art has been applied to them.
Since it is not particularly clear what Applicant’s wishes to argue here, Examiner can only note that the argument appear to be generally based on either a prohibitively/ unreasonably narrow interpretation of “selectively directed” and/or “selective reflection”, or some oversimplification/mischaracterization of Waldern’s disclosure – one which apparently overlooks the simple fact that Waldern’s birefringent grating plainly controls whether light is outcoupled from the system (and toward the user) or whether it continues to reflect and remain confined. Evidently, selective direction/reflection are both clearly established in Waldern’s disclosure. As such, the perceived/possible arguments that are directed to either of these aspects would appear to be largely without merit, and they would thus be unconvincing if Applicant intended to make them.
On pg. 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “Sekiya does not dynamically control a selectivity of reflection by a reflector to selectively reflect light outcoupled from an exit pupil expanded towards a user, as in claim 12” in order to attack the obviousness combination of Waldern and Sekiya.
However, Examiner will note that Sekiya was not specifically relied on for much of the features that Applicant is arguing here, and will again refer to the prior rejection – from which Applicant should note that Waldern (with, e.g., birefringence control layers having polarizing features) was relied on for much of the dynamic control details taken issue with. Applicant is also reminded that Sekiya was cited primarily to demonstrate that mere computer programming for active control of relevant optical elements (e.g. polarizing elements like Sekiya’s polarizing plate 14) is already obvious. As such, Waldern in view of Sekiya certainly support the basic feature of “…a computer program…causes dynamically controlling…” as claimed.
Examiner thus finds Applicant’s arguments against obviousness to be largely misplaced and irrelevant in attacking inconsequential details of Sekiya’s disclosure. Moreover, Applicant’s conclusion that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Sekiya” is further unconvincing as a non-sequitur that remains unsupported by any of the rationale preceding it – and as a mere declaration which improperly attempts to limit the basic creative ability afforded to practitioners of the art. Applicant is thus reminded that they are not in any position to dictate the thought-process of others; Applicant’s personal opinion that Sekiya may not sufficiently read on the claimed dynamic control aspect has no prohibitive bearing on what one of ordinary skill in the art may consider in their thought-process, nor on any creative liberties they may exercise when equipped with disclosures of Waldern and/or Sekiya.
Examiner lastly acknowledges Applicant’s concern that “[Sekiya’s] means 81a merely adjusts the brightness or the amount of light transmitted, which is not the same as selectively reflecting light, as in claim 12”. However, as already noted in the earlier rejection of claim 12, Examiner reiterates that in Sekiya, transmitted light is subsequently reflected by mirrors 15(r,g,b) – and that actively deciding what amount/type of light is ultimately reflected certainly supports dynamically controlling selectivity of reflection as claimed. As noted above, Sekiya may not necessarily have been relied on for more specific details associated with this claim limitation. Nonetheless, Applicant’s concerns regarding Sekiya failure to relate to such details appear to be largely misguided – based on little more than a mischaracterization/misunderstanding of the previous rejection and the manner in which Sekiya’s reference was applied therein.
Applicant’s arguments against the obviousness combination here are thus found unpersuasive as they appear to be largely based on mischaracterization/misunderstanding of the actual rejection and evidence made of record. Consequently, they amount to little more than simple attacks levied against Sekiya’s individual disclosure, and the drawing of improper/illogical conclusions by overattributing significance to irrelevant differences between Sekiya’s disclosure and the claimed invention. Applicant is thus reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness 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 also reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure remains objected to because the specification continues to be replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows (citations updated with respect to the recently filed marked:
On pg. 2, line 6 “According to various but not necessarily all examples there is provided an apparatus…” is still missing a comma after “examples”
On pg. 2, lines 14 and 30, the two instances reciting “[a/the] forward direction back towards the user” continue to present unclear directional construction using inconsistent terminology. Given the earlier recited “forward direction towards a user” and “backward direction away from the user”, subsequent mixing of “forward” and “back” in the same directionally phrase is imprecise and creates interpretive ambiguity
On pg. 4, line 5, “According to various but not necessarily all examples, there is provided examples…” is still written redundantly (2דexamples”) and grammatically improper in having poor subject-verb agreement (“examples”, “is”)
On pg. 4, line 8, a period is still missing after “optimized for the best user experience”
On pg. 4, lines 10-11, “The following portion of this 'Brief Summary' section, describes various features that may be features of…” has an improper comma and is written redundantly (2דfeatures”)
On pg. 6, line 12, there is an extra closing parenthesis
On pg. 9, line 27, “FIG 3” should read “FIG. 3”
On pg. 10, line 18, “comprise of” is not proper and should read “comprise”
On pg. 11, line 15, “Filter” is improperly capitalized
On pg. 11, line 21, “Performing (i) and (ii) passing…” is inconsistently capitalized with respect to other listed items (“(i) passing…”, “(ii) passing…”) and it is improper construction without clear meaning (“Performing… passing” stacks two verbs)
On pg. 11, line 30, “a portion the duration” should read “a portion of the duration”
On pg. 16, line 9, “example” should read “examples”, and “this may in dependence upon detection” is improper construction without clear meaning
On pg. 21, lines 18-21, the final paragraph of the specification is still a run-on sentence
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, lines 3-4 recite “reflect light, of different colors, outcoupled from the exit pupil expander in the backward direction, towards the user”. The recited limitation is grammatically ambiguous and unclear, which renders the claim indefinite – especially in light of the previous claim 1. Note that claim 1, lines 3-4 already established “outcouple[d] light in a forward direction towards a user and also in a backward direction away from the user”. Lines 3-4 of claim 5 are thus open to multiple interpretations with associated issues. For example:
Is light outcoupled in the backward direction and towards the user, when claim 1 had established that the user is in the forward direction? (Does the relative position of user change somehow?) Is the light then reflected in a different direction?
Or is the light first outcoupled before being reflected in the backward direction and towards the user?
Alternatively, is light first outcoupled in the backward direction, and subsequently reflected towards the forward direction (i.e. towards the user, being associated with the forward direction in claim 1)?
For examination purposes, Examiner shall take the interpretation of item C above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Waldern et al (US 20190285796 A1, hereinafter “Waldern”).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
1256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 2 of Waldern is annotated to highlight various features)]Regarding claim 1, Waldern discloses (see ¶s 95-100, FIGs. 1-3, detailing various related conceptual embodiments, with FIG. 2 annotated below) an apparatus, comprising:
a display comprising an exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200) comprising an outcoupling element (optical substrate 201 with birefringent grating 208) configured to outcouple light in a forward direction towards a user and also in a backward direction away from the user (note that Waldern’s disclosure is generally directed towards waveguide displays – see, e.g., ¶s 2, 5-6, 95-100, 149); and
Further regarding claim 1, and now also regarding claim 14, Waldern discloses (refer again to annotated FIG. 2 above and ¶s 95-100):
a dynamically controllable reflector (also including optical substrate 201 with birefringent grating 208, as well as birefringence control layer 209) configured to provide selective reflection for light outcoupled from the exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200),
wherein selectivity of reflection of the light is dynamically controllable, and wherein the light is selectively directed towards the user.
(For clarity, note also the following excerpts from background discussions in ¶s 76-94:
Waldern’s disclosure is largely directed towards the ‘switchable [i.e. dynamically controllable] Bragg grating (“SBG”)… [in which] HPDLC material is used’ (¶ 76)
¶ 94: “Holographic waveguides based on HPDLC offer the benefits of switching capability and high index modulation, but can suffer from... adverse effects such as polarization rotation can occur in gratings designed to fold [i.e. reflect] and expand the waveguided beam.”
Waldern generally provides “birefringence control layers [i.e. as part of the dynamically controllable reflector] designed to address one or more of the issues posed”.)
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 and the method as claimed in claim 14.
Waldern further discloses wherein the dynamically controllable reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209; see annotated FIG. 2 above) is configured to adjust a ratio of intensities of different colors present in light incident on the dynamically controllable reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209) from the exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200) to provide the selectively reflected light towards the user. (See ¶ 94: “in many embodiments, a compact and efficient birefringence control layer is implemented... for spatially varying [i.e. adjusting] angular/spectral bandwidth [i.e. encompassing different colors/wavelengths] for homogenizing the output [i.e. the intensities of the different colors] from a waveguide”.
Note also that in such switchable Bragg/birefringent gratings, diffraction efficiencies (and hence wavelength-selective reflection intensities) generally depend on applied/switching fields, as discussed in ¶s 76-78. See also ¶s 143-144 for other design details related to color waveguides)
Regarding claim 3, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Waldern further discloses the configured to adjust a color temperature or white point for the light provided by the dynamically controllable reflector to the user. (See ¶s 143-144 for other design details related to color waveguides. Mentioned are red/blue/green sources, which would enable different RGB values and associated color temperatures.)
Regarding claim 5, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Waldern further discloses wherein the dynamically controllable reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209; see annotated FIG. 2 above) is a color-controllable reflector configured to differentially reflect light, of different colors, outcoupled from the exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200) in the backward direction, towards the user (see ¶ 94: “in many embodiments, a compact and efficient birefringence control layer is implemented... for spatially varying angular/spectral bandwidth [i.e. encompassing different colors/wavelengths] for homogenizing the output from a waveguide”. Note also that in such switchable Bragg/birefringent gratings, diffraction efficiencies (and hence wavelength-selective reflections) generally depend on applied/switching fields, as discussed in ¶s 76-78. See also ¶s 143-144 for other design details related to color waveguides), wherein the color-controllable reflector is configured to reflect light of a first color more than light of a second color (note that any realistic reflection spectrum that is not idealistically constant will automatically reflect two colors with different efficiencies).
Regarding claim 6, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Waldern further discloses wherein the dynamically controllable reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209; see annotated FIG. 2 above) comprises a reflective surface (i.e. of optical substrate 201) and a color filter (See ¶ 105: “birefringence control layer... includes dichroic dyes, ... cholesteric filters, ...”).
Regarding claim 7, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6.
Waldern further discloses wherein the color filter (i.e. of the birefringence control layer) is a tunable wavelength selective color filter. (See ¶ 105: “birefringence control layer... includes dichroic dyes, ... cholesteric filters, ...”; as is commonly known, both dichroic dyes and cholesteric filters serve as tunable optical filters, with wavelength selection influenced or tunable by, e.g., applied voltage)
Regarding claim 8, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 7.
Waldern further discloses wherein the color filter (i.e. of the birefringence control layer) is configured to adjust a duty cycle per color sequentially. (See ¶ 105: “birefringence control layer... includes dichroic dyes, ... cholesteric filters, ...”; as is commonly known, both dichroic dyes and cholesteric filters serve as tunable optical filters, with wavelength selection influenced by, e.g., applied voltage. Naturally, any such color filter is configured to adjust color duty cycles; the only requirement of any filter would be that it responds to some stimulus (e,g, voltage) imposed on it for some corresponding effects on light and the resulting duty cycle.)
Regarding claim 9, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6.
Waldern further discloses wherein the color filter (i.e. of the birefringence control layer) is configured to be spatially non-homogeneous. (See ¶ 94: “in many embodiments, a compact and efficient birefringence control layer is implemented... for spatially varying [i.e. non-homogeneous] angular/spectral bandwidth for homogenizing the output”. See also ¶ 105: “birefringence control layer... includes dichroic dyes, ... cholesteric filters, ...”. Naturally, such optical filters reflect the spatial inhomogeneities of the underlying control layer.)
Regarding claim 10, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Waldern further discloses wherein the exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200) comprises:
an in-coupler diffraction element (coupler 202),
an expander element (birefringent grating 208), and
an out-coupler diffraction element (birefringent grating 208),
(Note per ¶ 98: "The apparatus further includes at least one birefringent grating 208 for providing beam expansion... light extraction...")
wherein the dynamically controllable reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209) is positioned adjacent the out-coupler diffraction element (birefringent grating 208). (See annotated FIG. 2 above)
Regarding claim 11, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Waldern further discloses configured as an exit pupil expander head up display. (149: “a waveguide display according to the principles of the invention may be integrated within a window, for example, a windscreen-integrated HUD for road vehicle applications”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekiya et al (US 20140152711 Al, hereinafter “Sekiya”).
Regarding claim 4, Waldern discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Waldern does not explicitly disclose wherein the selectivity of the dynamically controllable reflector is dependent upon output from one or more sensors of ambient illumination.
Waldern and Sekiya are related as being directed towards head-up display devices.
Sekiya explicitly discloses (see FIGs. 3-5, ¶s 69-98) wherein the selectivity of the dynamically controllable reflector (dichroic mirror 15 with liquid crystal panel 13 and polarization plate/unit 14) is dependent upon output from one or more sensors (light sensor 70) of ambient illumination. (Note also ¶ 127: "display brightness adjustment means 81a calculates a target brightness value B1... from an external illuminance measurement value Pl outputted from the light sensor 70, and... adjusts a display brightness B of an display image D by controlling a transmissivity Z of the polarization plate 14")
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Waldern and Sekiya, in order to provide environment-appropriate display brightnesses and avoid discomfort for drivers viewing the display (Sekiya ¶s 8-11))
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern et al (US 20190285796 A1, hereinafter “Waldern”) in view of Sekiya et al (US 20140152711 Al, hereinafter “Sekiya”).
Regarding claim 12, Waldern discloses (see ¶s 95-100, annotated FIG. 2 above) dynamically controlling selectivity of reflection by a reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209) to selectively reflect light outcoupled from an exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200) towards a user.
(For clarity, note also the following excerpts from background discussions in ¶s 76-94:
Waldern’s disclosure is largely directed towards the ‘switchable [i.e. dynamically controllable] Bragg grating (“SBG”) … [in which] HPDLC material is used’ (¶ 76)
¶ 94: “Holographic waveguides based on HPDLC offer the benefits of switching capability and high index modulation, but can suffer from... adverse effects such as polarization rotation can occur in gratings designed to fold [i.e. reflect] and expand the waveguided beam.”
Waldern generally provides “birefringence control layers [i.e. as part of the dynamically controllable reflector] designed to address one or more of the issues posed”.)
Waldern does not disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program comprising computer program instructions that, when loaded into at least one processor, causes: the dynamically controlling selectivity.
Waldern and Sekiya are related as being directed towards head-up display devices.
Sekiya discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program comprising computer program instructions that, when loaded into at least one processor, causes: the dynamically controlling selectivity. (See ¶s 126-127 describing operations of microcomputer 81 for performing adaptive brightness adjustments by controlling transmissivity of polarization plate 14 – this in turn dynamically controls light being reflected from dichroic mirrors 15(r,g,b); see FIG. 3 and ¶s 69-98 for more structural/operational details. Naturally these operations are due to some computer programming.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Waldern and Sekiya, in order to provide environment-appropriate display brightnesses and avoid discomfort for drivers viewing the display (Sekiya ¶s 8-11))
Regarding claim 13, modified Waldern discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with the computer program as claimed in claim 12.
Waldern further discloses wherein the instructions are configured to adjust a ratio of intensities of different colors present in light incident on the dynamically controllable reflector (optical substrate 201, birefringent grating 208, birefringence control layer 209; see annotated FIG. 2 above) from the exit pupil expander (waveguide apparatus 200) to provide the selectively reflected light towards the user. (See ¶ 94: “in many embodiments, a compact and efficient birefringence control layer is implemented... for spatially varying [i.e. adjusting] angular/spectral bandwidth [i.e. encompassing different colors/wavelengths] for homogenizing the output [i.e. the intensities of the different colors] from a waveguide”.
Note also that in such switchable Bragg/birefringent gratings, diffraction efficiencies (and hence wavelength-selective reflection intensities) generally depend on applied/switching fields, as discussed in ¶s 76-78. See also ¶s 143-144 for other design details related to color waveguides).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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 at (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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872