DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a reply filed 10/22/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024, 8/28/2024 and 8/4/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Election/Restrictions
In the response of 10/22/2025 from applicant on the restriction requirement on 8/20/2025, applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claims 12-22). Hence claim 23 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups are not mutually exclusive and no burden on the prior art search. Applicants claim two distinct groups of optical systems, corresponding to different invention in instant specification disclosure, for example, in the instant case, the device group 1 may not applying wherein the convex partial reflector and the concave partial reflector are sequentially configured between the pupil position and the microdisplay as in fig.24 of group 2 as required in the group 2; therefore, because the searches are different, a serious search and/or examination burden would exist if the aforementioned restriction were not required.
With regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the invention would be coextensive. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper.
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 12-22 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 12, the term “the reflected light” (line 14) is vague and renders the claims indefinite and lacks antecedent; it is unclear which specific reflected light is being referred to; for example, as shown in Applicant’s Figure 1, claim 1 recites the microdisplay is configured as a transparent display or a rotating linear display and emits light (lines 10-11), but the apparatus in Figure 1 includes multiple different reflected light, thus it is unclear which reflected light is intended by the term “the reflected light” in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the term “the glass frame ” (line 2) is vague and renders the claims indefinite and lacks antecedent; it is unclear which specific the glass frame is being referred to; claim 17 cited a glass frame (line 4), but claim 18 is according to claim 12, thus it is unclear which specific the glass frame is being referred to.
Claims 13-22 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 12 through their dependency from claim 12.
It is suggested to amend the claims and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issue(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 24-26 are rejected since they are in improper dependent form and fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend, and fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend, since they depend on claim 9 which is has been canceled (see MPEP § 608.01(n) subsection V). The claims will be treated to depend on claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 12-13, 15-16, 18-19 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calm (US20180284459) .
Regarding claim 12, Calm teaches a short-focus near-eye display optical system (fig.7, short-focus near-eye display), comprising: a microdisplay (fig.7, paragraph [0036], display 102); a convex partial reflector (fig.7, paragraph [0033], See-thru convex mirror/polarizer 106); and a concave partial reflector (paragraph [0033], Spherically curved composite reflector 104); wherein the convex partial reflector (fig.7, the 106) or the planar partial reflector is closer to a pupil position (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the pupil ), and the concave partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the 104) is farther from the pupil position (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the pupil).; and the microdisplay (the display 102) is configured as a transparent display or a rotating linear display and emits light towards the pupil position (see Calm, figs.7-8, the display 102 is configured as a transparent display and emit light 33 towards a pupil position EYE; paragraph [0037], The path and polarization of light from display up to reaching the eye), the convex partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the 106) or the planar partial reflector, and the concave partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.7 , the concave partial reflector) are configured such that the emitted light is first reflected by the convex partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the concave partial reflector configured such that the emitted light is first reflected by the convex partial reflector, the 106) or the planar partial reflector, the reflected light is reflected by the concave partial reflector, and the reflected light passes through the convex partial reflector or the planar partial reflector and reaches the pupil position (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, have the reflected light is reflected by the concave partial reflector, and the reflected light passes through the convex partial reflector or the planar partial reflector and reaches the pupil position.).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
1348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Calm of fig.7 does not explicitly teaches wherein the microdisplay is located between the convex partial reflector and the concave partial reflector or the microdisplay is located between the planar partial reflector and the concave partial reflector, the convex partial reflector or the planar partial reflector is closer to a pupil position, and the concave partial reflector is farther from the pupil position.
However, Calm of fig.13A teaches the analogous display system with the concave partial reflector (Calm, fig.13A, display 102; concave partial reflector 130; paragraph [0040]. The polarizer/see-thru concave mirror plate ,130 has spherically curved transparent base plate topped by occluding polarizer,130A, on the convex side and topped at the concave side by see-thru concave mirror,130B), and further teaches wherein the microdisplay (annotated image, Calm, fig.13A, display 102) is located between the convex partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.13A, the convex partial reflector) and the concave partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.13A, concave partial reflector).
Calm of fig.13A also teaches where the convex partial reflector is closer to a pupil position, and the concave partial reflector is farther from the pupil position (annotated image, Calm, fig.13A, the convex partial reflector is closer to a pupil position, and the concave partial reflector is farther from the pupil position).
Calm also teaches (in paragraphs [0044]-[0049], Advantages [0044] From the description above, a number of advantages of some embodiments of my NED become evident: [0045] a) Fewer elements along the path of light from external view to the eye and fewer optical folding have been used to realize clearer view of the NED display. [0046] b) Concave surface of the exit polarizer (106B) provided bigger space between the eye and NED to accomodate eyeglasses and other devices. [0047] c) The shape of the NED concentric optical system can be more freely designed for aesthetic look. [0048] d) The more than 180 FOV can be accommodated. [0049] e) Occluding system which allows the external view and local display to be both controlled and merged into one can be fully realized).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the apparatus of Calm of fig.7 to have the microdisplay is located between the convex partial reflector and the concave partial reflector as taught by Calm of fig.13A for the purpose of fewer elements along the path of light from external view to the eye and fewer optical folding have been used to realize clearer view of the NED display and the more than 180 FOV can be accommodated (Calm, paragraphs [0044]-[0049]).
PNG
media_image2.png
722
1318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein further comprising a phase retardation wave plate or a polarization element (Calm, paragraph [0033], Quarterwave retarder strips 104B, See-thru convex mirror/polarizer 106, Exit polarizer 106B, LCD front polarizer 122A, LCD rear polarizer 122C ) is arbitrarily arranged among the pupil position, the convex partial reflector (fig.7, the 104) or the planar partial reflector, the concave partial reflector (fig.7, the 106), and the microdisplay (fig.7, the 102).
Regarding claim 15, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein the linear display (paragraph [0013], The pixels at the display) is formed by splicing a plurality of rectilinear microdisplay units (paragraph [0035], initially set at “A” parts of the display or image source,102 ;The slits move to “B” parts of the display, 102 shown in FIG. 2B. sets the slits to “C” parts of the display, 102), a non-display region (fig.2, paragraph [0035], slits) is provided between adjacent rectilinear display units (see Calm, fig.2, described above, each slit is provided between adjacent rectilinear set at “A”, “B”, “C” parts of the display), and a display overlapping region (Calm fig.2, [0035], slits) is reserved at a position where the rectilinear display units ((paragraph [0035], initially set at “A” parts of the display or image source,102 ;The slits move to “B” parts of the display, 102 shown in FIG. 2B. sets the slits to “C” parts of the display, 102) in two adjacent circles are spliced (see Calm, fig.2, have two adjacent circles are spliced), to compensate for an assembly error (--this portion is of function claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Calm is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expect to compensate for an assembly error function provided by Calm has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); further, Calm also teaches in paragraph [0015], Accordingly, several advantages of one or more aspects are as follows: to provide a NED that employs rapid spherical image scan that produces “persistence of vision” to realize wider FOV and larger eye box, that have folded optical path that makes the NED compact and have satisfactory clearer view of the display, that can provide bigger space between the eye and the NED, that is capable of integrating an occluding system with high resolution and wide FOV. Other advantages of one or more aspects will be apparent from consideration of the drawings and ensuing description.).
Regarding claim 16, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein further comprising a thin shaft is fixed in a center of the partial reflector to limit radial movement of the linear display, and the linear display rotates about the thin shaft (Calm, paragraph [0014], the counter-balance to circular-spherical movement with its shaft aligned to the concentric center, a motor that drives the driving crank; a slave crank near the opposite edge of composite mirror with its shaft aligned to the concentric center; another slave crank near the opposite edge of the counter-balance with its shaft aligned with the shaft of the latter crank and aligned with the concentric center; spherical guide or guides to constrain both the composite mirror and the counter-balance to spherical movements; a see-thru spherically curved mirror-polarizer composite with mirror at the convex side and polarizer at the concave side; paragraph [0051], crank shaft 108A and crank arms 108B can be used as long as all cranks arms have identical angles from crank shaft; the cylindrically curved display can be elliptically curved or free-form curved display; thus Calm of fig.7 is capable of have a thin shaft is fixed in a center of the partial reflector to limit radial movement of the linear display, and the linear display rotates about the thin shaft).
Regarding claim 18, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12, and calm further teaches wherein on the convex partial reflector ((annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the 106), the concave partial reflector (annotated image, Calm, fig.7, the 104), and the glass frame form a closed space filled with nitrogen or inert gas, or vacuumized to prevent oxidation of internal components and reduce rotational resistance (this claim is protecting optics inside a frame – Calm teaches in paragraph [0014]; a see-thru spherically curved mirror-polarizer composite with mirror at the convex side and polarizer at the concave side; a frame to support, protect the device and mount the device to the head; also this portion is product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method/process of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Calm is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that Calm can perform same function as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 19, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein the concave partial reflector is a stripped concave reflector (fig.7, 104, paragraph [0033], concave mirror strips 104A) and rotates synchronously with the microdisplay (fig.7, paragraph [0035], The motor is powered on and it rotates the drive crank (108). The drive crank (108) and the composite reflector slave crank (112) sets the spherically curved composite reflector (104) in spherical and circular motion from the crank arms (108B and 112B). The drive crank (108) and the counterbalance slave crank (110) sets the transparent concave counter balance (118) also in spherical and circular motion at the opposite crank arms (108C and 110B)).
Regarding claim 24, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein further a phase retardation wave plate or a polarization element is arbitrarily arranged among the pupil position, the convex partial reflector, the concave partial reflector, and the microdisplay (this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding claim 13 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale).
Regarding claim 25, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein the concave partial reflector is a stripped concave reflector (fig.7, 104, paragraph [0033], concave mirror strips 104A), the stripped concave reflector being connected to the microdisplay located at an outer side thereof and rotating together with the microdisplay (fig.7, paragraph [0035], The motor is powered on and it rotates the drive crank (108). The drive crank (108) and the composite reflector slave crank (112) sets the spherically curved composite reflector (104) in spherical and circular motion from the crank arms (108B and 112B). The drive crank (108) and the counterbalance slave crank (110) sets the transparent concave counter balance (118) also in spherical and circular motion at the opposite crank arms (108C and 110B)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calm (US20180284459), and further in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US20170068104).
Regarding claim 14, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein a surface of the convex partial reflector is provided with an optical film layer capable of reflecting p-type linearly polarized light and transmitting s-type linearly polarized light, and a surface of the concave partial reflector (Calm, fig.7, the 104) is coated with an optical film layer (Calm, paragraph [0033] Concave mirror strips 104A) which has a reflectivity of more than 90% for a light-emitting wavelength of a pixel of the microdisplay (paragraph [0034], The concave mirror strips (104A) are preferably coated with light absorbing material.).
Calm does not explicitly teaches wherein a surface of the convex partial reflector is provided with an optical film layer capable of reflecting p-type linearly polarized light and transmitting s-type linearly polarized light.
However, Ouderkirk teaches the analogous display system (Ouderkirk, paragraph [0006] The second optical stack is convex toward the image surface along the first and second axes, and includes a second optical lens, a multilayer reflective polarizer substantially transmitting light having a first polarization state and substantially reflecting light having an orthogonal second polarization state, and a first quarter wave retarder disposed between the reflective polarizer and the first optical stack...), and further teaches wherein a surface of the convex partial reflector (Ouderkirk, fig.9, the convex partial reflector has been referred as the reflective polarizer 926) is provided with an optical film layer capable of reflecting p-type linearly polarized light (Ouderkirk, fig.9, paragraph [0107], surface 926 and includes a first quarter wave retarder disposed on the reflective polarizer --- is capable of reflecting p-type linearly polarized light) and transmitting s-type linearly polarized light (--- since Ouderkirk teaches the reflective polarizer 926 is disposed on first quarter wave retarder, thus p-type linearly polarized light after passed quarter wave retarder will be transmitting s-type linearly polarized light), and a surface of the concave partial reflector (Ouderkirk, fig.9, paragraph [0107], one or more layers 943 includes a partial reflector) is coated with an optical film layer (Ouderkirk, paragraph [0107], one or more layers 943 includes a partial reflector. In other embodiments, as described further elsewhere herein, the reflective polarizer, the first quarter wave retarder, and the partial reflector are disposed on different surfaces of first and second lenses 912 and 922) which has a reflectivity of more than 90% for a light-emitting wavelength of a pixel of the microdisplay (Ouderkirk, paragraph [0109], in some embodiments, substantially any chief light ray having at least first and second wavelengths at least 150 nm apart in a visible wavelength range (e.g., first and second wavelengths of 486 nm and 656 nm, respectively) and that is transmitted through the image surface 930 and the stop surface 935 has a color separation distance at the stop surface 935 of less than 1.5 percent, or less than 1.2 percent, of a field of view at the stop surface 935. In some embodiments, substantially any chief light ray having at least first and second wavelengths at least 150 nm apart in a visible wavelength range and that is transmitted through the image surface 930 and the stop surface 935 has a color separation distance at the stop surface 935 of less than 20 arc minutes, or less than 10 arc minutes).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Calm to have the film’s material which has a reflectivity of more than 90% for a light-emitting wavelength of a pixel of the microdisplay as taught by Ouderkirk for the purpose be determined by averaging the reflectance over the desired or pre-determined plurality of wavelengths and Substantially any chief light ray having at least first and second wavelengths at least 150 nm apart in the desired plurality of wavelengths and emitted by the image source and transmitted by the exit pupil has a color separation distance at the exit pupil of less than 1.5 percent of a field of view at the exit pupil (Ouderkirk, paragraphs [0053] and [0009]).
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calm (US20180284459), and further in view of Chan et al. (US20200081257).
Regarding claim 22, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein surface types and relative positions of the convex partial reflector, the concave partial reflector (described in claim 12), and the convex partial reflector and the concave partial reflector are configured to transmit part of the light (described in claim 12).
Calm does not explicitly teaches wherein the micro display (the display 102) is configured to suit a degree of myopia of a user.
However, Chan teaches the analogous near-eye display system (Chan, abstract, an electronic device may include a display with a concave surface. A linear polarizer may be formed on the concave surface. A quarter wave plate may receive light from the linear polarizer; paragraph [0014], As shown in FIG. 1, electronic device 10 (e.g., a head-mounted device with support structures configured to be worn on the head of a user such as glasses, goggles, a helmet, hat, etc.) may include a display system with one or more displays 40 (e.g., a display for each of a user's eyes such as eye 46..), and further teaches wherein and the microdisplay is configured to suit a degree of myopia of a user (Chan, paragraph [0038] Focus adjustments may be made, for example, to correct user vision defects such as myopia and farsightedness or may be made dynamically based on the type of content being displayed on display 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Calm to suit a degree of myopia of a user as taught by Chan for the purpose to reduce vergence-accommodation mismatch effects (Chan, paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 26, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Calm further teaches wherein surface types and relative positions of the convex partial reflector, the concave partial reflector (described in claim 12), and the convex partial reflector and the concave partial reflector are configured to transmit part of the light (described in claim 12).
Calm does not explicitly teaches wherein the micro display (the display 102) is configured to suit a degree of myopia of a user.
However, Chan teaches the analogous near-eye display system (Chan, abstract, an electronic device may include a display with a concave surface. A linear polarizer may be formed on the concave surface. A quarter wave plate may receive light from the linear polarizer; paragraph [0014], As shown in FIG. 1, electronic device 10 (e.g., a head-mounted device with support structures configured to be worn on the head of a user such as glasses, goggles, a helmet, hat, etc.) may include a display system with one or more displays 40 (e.g., a display for each of a user's eyes such as eye 46..), and further teaches wherein and the microdisplay is configured to suit a degree of myopia of a user (Chan, paragraph [0038] Focus adjustments may be made, for example, to correct user vision defects such as myopia and farsightedness or may be made dynamically based on the type of content being displayed on display 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Calm to suit a degree of myopia of a user as taught by Chan for the purpose to reduce vergence-accommodation mismatch effects (Chan, paragraph [0038]).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12, but is silent on wherein further comprising a sliding ring sleeves an outer ring of a linear display rotating ring; a bound magnetic ring, a magnetic conductive ring, and a wear-resisting ring are fixed at corresponding positions of a glass frame above the sliding ring; a lubrication gap is formed between the wear-resisting ring and the sliding ring; the bound magnetic ring transmits a magnetic field around the lubrication gap through the magnetic conductive ring; and magnetic fluid is provided and flushed into the lubrication gap to form a stable sealing structure for liquid lubrication
Regarding claim 20, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12, but is silent on a rotating ring is connected to an edge of the linear display, an inner magnetic ring is fixed to an outer side of the rotating ring, and an outer magnetic ring fixed to a glass frame is arranged on an outer side of the inner magnetic ring, the inner magnetic ring and the outer magnetic ring forming concentric circles and having an air gap therebetween to prevent friction and form magnetic confinement
Regarding claim 21, Calm discloses the invention as described in Claim 12, but is silent on wherein a driving coil or PCB is arranged on a glass frame corresponding to a left side or right side of the rotating ring, the driving coil or PCB being configured to drive the rotating ring to rotate and wirelessly supply power to the linear display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Togino (US5517366), fig.2, discloses a short-focus near-eye display system similar in structure to the claimed invention.
Li et al. (US20180164590), fig. 6, discloses a short-focus near-eye display system similar in structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872