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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 25th February, 2026. Claims 1, 8-9, 19-20, and 22 have been amended. Claims 13-17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 18-22 remain rejected in the application. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 1st December, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 20 filed on [DATE], with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, regarding that the prior art does not teach the limitation(s): "based on the determination that the next frame of image content meets the low encoded intensity condition, maintaining the lower refresh rate and delaying a transition to the higher refresh rate while presenting an initial set of frames of the second image content, despite the second image content changing at the higher frame rate which is higher than the lower refresh rate" and "based on the determination that the second frame of image content does not meet the low encoded intensity condition, changing a refresh rate for the emissive display device from the lower refresh rate to a higher refresh rate that is higher than the lower refresh rate, and presenting the second image content at the higher refresh rate" have been fully considered, but are moot because of new grounds for rejection. It has now been taught by the combination of Nho and Le.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2-12, 18-19, and 21-22, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1 and 20 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1 and 20. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
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 1-2, 8-12, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nho et al. (US 20160196802 A1), hereinafter referenced as Nho, in view of Le et al. (US 20190244572 A1), hereinafter referenced as Le.
Regarding Claim 1, Nho discloses a method (Nho, FIG. 10 teaches a process <read on method> of displaying content at various refresh rates) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
520
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
presenting, by an emissive display device, first image content at a lower refresh rate (Nho, [0021]: teaches an organic light-emitting diode display <read on emissive display device>; [0033]: teaches displaying static or nearly static content <read on first image content> at a relatively low refresh rate), wherein
the first image content changes at a lower frame rate (Nho, [0033]: teaches displaying static or nearly static content <read on first image content> at a relatively low refresh rate);
determining that a next frame of image content for display on the emissive display device [[meets a low encoded intensity condition]] (Nho, [0032]: teaches a control circuitry 16 examining the contents of frame buffer 54, where it determines "whether upcoming content <read on next frame of image content> that is to be displayed on display 14 contains moving content or static content"), wherein
the next frame and successive frames represent second image content that changes at a higher frame rate that is higher than the lower frame rate and that is higher than the lower refresh rate (Nho, [0032]: teaches a control circuitry 16 examining the contents of frame buffer 54, where it determines "whether upcoming content <read on next frame and successive frames> that is to be displayed on display 14 contains moving content <read on second image content> or static content"; [0033]: teaches moving content being displayed at a relatively high refresh rate <read on higher frame rate>, such as 60 or 30 Hz, which is higher than a relatively low refresh rate <read on lower frame rate>, such as 1 or 2 Hz; Note: it should be noted that one skilled in the art would understand that moving content (i.e., video content) would have a higher refresh rate than static content (i.e., a still image));
[[based on the determination that the next frame of image content meets the low encoded intensity condition, maintaining the lower refresh rate and delaying a transition to the higher refresh rate while presenting an initial set of frames of the second image content, despite the second image content changing at the higher frame rate which is higher than the lower refresh rate;]]
determining that a second frame of image content [[does not meet the low encoded intensity condition]] (Nho, [0032]: teaches a control circuitry 16 examining the contents of frame buffer 54, where it determines "whether upcoming content <read on second frame of image content> that is to be displayed on display 14 contains moving content or static content"), wherein
the second frame is part of the second image content (Nho, [0032]: teaches a control circuitry 16 examining the contents of frame buffer 54, where it determines "whether upcoming content <read on second frame> that is to be displayed on display 14 contains moving content <read on second image content> or static content"); and
[[based on the determination that the second frame of image content does not meet the low encoded intensity condition,]] changing a refresh rate for the emissive display device from the lower refresh rate to a higher refresh rate that is higher than the lower refresh rate (Nho, [0045]: teaches transitioning from a low refresh rate <read on lower refresh rate> RRL to a high refresh rate <read on higher refresh rate>; Note: it should be noted that one skilled in the art would understand that a high refresh rate is higher than a low refresh rate), and
presenting the second image content at the higher refresh rate (Nho, [0047]: teaches device 10 presenting moving content <read on second image content> on display 14 at a high refresh rate RRH <read on higher refresh rate>).
However, Nho does not expressly disclose
determining that a next frame of image content for display on the emissive display device meets a low encoded intensity condition;
based on the determination that the next frame of image content meets the low encoded intensity condition, maintaining the lower refresh rate and delaying a transition to the higher refresh rate while presenting an initial set of frames of the second image content, despite the second image content changing at the higher frame rate which is higher than the lower refresh rate;
determining that a second frame of image content does not meet the low encoded intensity condition; and
based on the determination that the second frame of image content does not meet the low encoded intensity condition, changing a refresh rate for the emissive display device from the lower refresh rate to a higher refresh rate that is higher than the lower refresh rate.
Le discloses
determining that a next frame of image content for display on the emissive display device meets a low encoded intensity condition (Le, [0055]: teaches display 110 including display pixels formed from light-emitting diodes (LEDs), organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) <read on emissive display device>; [0103]: teaches a decision engine 2302 determining whether a number (e.g., five) of continuous lower frequency (e.g., less than 120 Hz) display frames have occurred <read on low encoded intensity condition being met>);
based on the determination that the next frame of image content meets the low encoded intensity condition, maintaining the lower refresh rate and delaying a transition to the higher refresh rate while presenting an initial set of frames of the second image content, despite the second image content changing at the higher frame rate which is higher than the lower refresh rate (Le, [0105]: teaches checking if 5 continuous frames <read on initial set of frames> are not less than a frame rate of 120 Hz <read on meeting low encoded intensity condition>, where a phase shift is performed and the lower frequency 120 Hz is applied <read on maintaining lower refresh rate> before applying a 240 Hz transition pattern <read on delayed transition to higher refresh rate>; Note: it should be noted that not meeting the high-frequency transition condition is being interpreted as meeting a low encoded intensity condition; [0125]: teaches a phase shift in the display frames occurring during a particular transition mode, where "while backlight unit 202 provides a low frequency (e.g., 120 Hz) pulse in a frame 3510, the GPU delays a frame 3520 for additional processing <read on delaying transition> (e.g., at a frame rate of 80 Hz)" such that a LCD frame phase shift has occurred and that a phase correction transition is performed as shown in FIG. 35; Note: it should be noted that the 5 continuous frames displayed are being interpreted as frames displayed at a frame rate higher than 120 Hz, which is interpreted to be a higher frame rate);
PNG
media_image2.png
230
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining that a second frame of image content does not meet the low encoded intensity condition (Le, [0105]: teaches checking if 5 continuous frames are less than a frame rate of 120 Hz <read on not meeting low encoded intensity condition>, where a 240 Hz transition pattern is applied; Note: it should be noted that meeting the high-frequency transition condition is being interpreted as not meeting a low encoded intensity condition); and
based on the determination that the second frame of image content does not meet the low encoded intensity condition, changing a refresh rate for the emissive display device from the lower refresh rate to a higher refresh rate that is higher than the lower refresh rate (Le, [0105]: teaches checking if 5 continuous frames are less than a frame rate of 120 Hz <read on second frame not meeting low encoded intensity condition>, where a 240 Hz transition pattern is applied).
Le is analogous art with respect to Nho because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling image content on variable refresh rate displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a decision engine that selects transition pulse patterns for specific frame rate transitions as taught by Le into the teaching of Nho. The suggestion for doing so would prevent visible artifacts from being displayed when transitioning between refresh rates, thereby improving the overall viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Le with Nho.
Regarding Claim 20, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Nho discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Nho, [0016]: teaches control circuitry 16 including non-volatile memory <read on non-transitory computer-readable storage medium>) comprising
instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a computing system to perform operations that include (Nho, [0016]: teaches control circuitry 16 <read on processor> of an electronic device 10 <read on computing system> controlling operations <read on instructions> of said device):…
Thus, Claim 20 is met by Nho according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. Nho does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 2; however, Le discloses wherein the low encoded intensity condition includes
a predefined encoded intensity threshold (Le, [0102]: teaches the decision engine determining whether a temperature of the display is less than a temperature threshold <read on predefined encoded intensity threshold> for reduced-frequency pulsing).
Le is analogous art with respect to Nho because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling image content on variable refresh rate displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a decision engine that selects transition pulse patterns for specific frame rate transitions as taught by Le into the teaching of Nho. The suggestion for doing so would prevent visible artifacts from being displayed when transitioning between refresh rates, thereby improving the overall viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Le with Nho.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. Additionally, Nho further discloses
determining that a third frame [[meets the low encoded intensity condition]], the third frame being displayed consecutively after the next frame and before the second frame (Nho, [0032]: teaches a control circuitry 16 examining the contents of frame buffer 54, where it determines "whether upcoming content <read on third frame of image content> that is to be displayed on display 14 contains moving content or static content"; Note: it should be noted that one skilled in the art would understand that frames of video content are displayed consecutively (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)), wherein
[[maintaining the lower refresh rate while presenting the second image content is based on the next frame meeting the low encoded intensity condition and the third frame meeting the low encoded intensity condition.]]
However, Nho does not expressly disclose
determining that a third frame meets the low encoded intensity condition, the third frame being displayed consecutively after the next frame and before the second frame, wherein
maintaining the lower refresh rate while presenting the second image content is based on the next frame meeting the low encoded intensity condition and the third frame meeting the low encoded intensity condition.
Le discloses
determining that a third frame meets the low encoded intensity condition, the third frame being displayed consecutively after the next frame and before the second frame (Le, [0103]: teaches a decision engine 2302 determining whether a number (e.g., five) of continuous lower frequency (e.g., less than 120 Hz) display frames have occurred <read on third frame meeting low encoded intensity condition>), wherein
maintaining the lower refresh rate while presenting the second image content is based on the next frame meeting the low encoded intensity condition and the third frame meeting the low encoded intensity condition (Le, [0105]: teaches checking if 5 continuous frames are not less than a frame rate of 120 Hz <read on third frame meeting low encoded intensity condition>, where a phase shift is performed and the lower frequency 120 Hz is applied <read on maintaining lower refresh rate> before applying a 240 Hz transition pattern; Note: it should be noted that not meeting the high-frequency transition condition is being interpreted as meeting a low encoded intensity condition).
Le is analogous art with respect to Nho because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling image content on variable refresh rate displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a decision engine that selects transition pulse patterns for specific frame rate transitions as taught by Le into the teaching of Nho. The suggestion for doing so would prevent visible artifacts from being displayed when transitioning between refresh rates, thereby improving the overall viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Le with Nho.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. Additionally, Nho further discloses
determining that a third frame [[does not meet the low encoded intensity condition]], the third frame being displayed consecutively after the second frame (Nho, [0032]: teaches a control circuitry 16 examining the contents of frame buffer 54, where it determines "whether upcoming content <read on third frame of image content> that is to be displayed on display 14 contains moving content or static content"), wherein
changing the refresh rate for the emissive display device from the lower refresh rate to the higher refresh rate (Nho, [0045]: teaches transitioning from a low refresh rate <read on lower refresh rate> RRL to a high refresh rate <read on higher refresh rate>) and
presenting the second image content at the higher refresh rate [[is based on the determination that the second frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition and the determination that the third frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition]] (Nho, [0047]: teaches device 10 presenting moving content <read on second image content> on display 14 at a high refresh rate RRH <read on higher refresh rate>; Note: it should be noted that one skilled in the art would understand that a high refresh rate is higher than a low refresh rate).
However, Nho does not expressly disclose
determining that a third frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition, the third frame being displayed consecutively after the second frame; and
presenting the second image content at the higher refresh rate is based on the determination that the second frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition and the determination that the third frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition.
Le discloses
determining that a third frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition, the third frame being displayed consecutively after the second frame (Le, [0105]: teaches checking if 5 continuous frames are less than a frame rate of 120 Hz <read on not meeting low encoded intensity condition>, where a 240 Hz transition pattern is applied; Note: it should be noted that meeting the high-frequency transition condition is being interpreted as not meeting a low encoded intensity condition; additionally, one skilled in the art would understand that frames of video content are displayed consecutively (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)); and
presenting the second image content at the higher refresh rate is based on the determination that the second frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition and the determination that the third frame does not meet the low encoded intensity condition (Le, [0105]: teaches checking if 5 continuous frames are less than a frame rate of 120 Hz <read on second and third frames not meeting low encoded intensity condition>, where a 240 Hz transition pattern is applied).
Le is analogous art with respect to Nho because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling image content on variable refresh rate displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a decision engine that selects transition pulse patterns for specific frame rate transitions as taught by Le into the teaching of Nho. The suggestion for doing so would prevent visible artifacts from being displayed when transitioning between refresh rates, thereby improving the overall viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Le with Nho.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. Additionally, Nho further discloses wherein the emissive display includes
an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) display (Nho, [0021]: teaches an organic light-emitting diode display <read on AMOLED display>).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. Additionally, Nho further discloses
changing a peak luminance of at least one pixel after changing the refresh rate (Nho, [0039]: teaches applying a default scaling factor SF of 1.0 to display 14 at high refresh rate RRH, where if the refresh rate is reduced, then the scaling factor SF is adjusted to 0.995 <read on changing peak luminance>, which affects pixels 22 of display 14).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. Additionally, Nho further discloses wherein the refresh rate for the emissive display device changes based on
a change of a type of application presented by a display (Nho, [0036]: teaches static content being displayed at a lower frame rate and moving content being displayed at a higher frame rate <read on change of type of application> as shown in FIG. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
250
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 18 and 21, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claims 1 and 20 respectively. Additionally, Nho further discloses wherein:
the first image content represents still image content (Nho, [0033]: teaches "content that is static <read on first image content being still image content> or nearly static may be displayed using a relatively low refresh rate (e.g., a refresh rate of 1 Hz, 2 Hz, or other suitably low rate for minimizing display power consumption)"); and
the second image content represents video image content (Nho, [0033]: teaches "some or all moving content <read on second image content being video image content> may be displayed using a relatively high refresh rate (e.g., 60 Hz, 30 Hz, or other suitably high rate for displaying images that change rapidly)").
Regarding Claims 19 and 22, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claims 1 and 20 respectively. Additionally, Nho further discloses wherein:
the lower frame rate matches the lower refresh rate (Nho, [0033]: teaches "content that is static or nearly static <read on lower frame rate> may be displayed using a relatively low refresh rate <read on matching lower refresh rate> (e.g., a refresh rate of 1 Hz, 2 Hz, or other suitably low rate for minimizing display power consumption)"); and
the higher frame rate matches the higher refresh rate (Nho, [0033]: teaches "some or all moving content may be displayed using a relatively high refresh rate <read on matching higher refresh rate> (e.g., 60 Hz, 30 Hz, or other suitably high rate for displaying images that change rapidly <read on higher frame rate>)").
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nho et al. (US 20160196802 A1), hereinafter referenced as Nho, in view of Le et al. (US 20190244572 A1), hereinafter referenced as Le as applied to Claim 1 above respectively, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20150287352 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. The combination of Nho and Le does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 3; however, Watanabe discloses wherein the low encoded intensity condition includes at least
a predefined proportion of pixels having encoded intensities equal to or less than a predefined encoded intensity threshold (Watanabe, [0035]: teaches the display section 10 including a screen that is capable of varying the refresh rate of the display image, where "reducing the refresh rate allows for such an effect as a reduction in electric power consumption" and "an increase in a pixel aperture ratio brings about such an effect as causing a displayed image to be brighter"; [0076]: teaches an image determining section 35 determining the percentage of all RGB pixel color values <read on predefined proportion of pixels> and taking the sum of the weighted values in a first range, where "in a case where the sum is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value (e.g. a value obtained by (3+6+1)×30[%]) <read on encoded intensities equal to or less than a predefined encoded intensity threshold>, the image determining section 35 can determine that flicker is easily recognizable in the image").
Watanabe is analogous art with respect to Nho, in view of Le because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling dynamic refresh displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement an image determining section that calculates the weighted average of color values as taught by Watanabe into the teaching of Nho, in view of Le. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine potential flicker based on color pixel values, thereby improving the overall user viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Watanabe with Nho, in view of Le.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nho, Le, and Watanabe discloses the method of Claim 3. Additionally, Nho further discloses wherein the predefined proportion is based on
a brightness level of the emissive display device (Nho, [0039]: teaches using a scaling factor SF to affect the luminance <read on brightness level> of display 14 <read on emissive display device>, where an SF of 1.0 results in the luminance being 0.995 L).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nho, Le, and Watanabe discloses the method of Claim 3. The combination of Nho and Le does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 5; however, Watanabe discloses wherein the encoded intensities of the pixels are determined based on
a weighted average of red values, green values, and blue values (Watanabe, [0076]: teaches an "image determining section 35 can determine (i) respective percentages of R, G, and B pixels having grayscale levels within a first range and (ii) determine respective weighted values of the percentages <read on weighted average of RGB values>," where "in such a case, the image determining section 35 determines whether or not a sum of the weighted values is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value"),
the green values being weighted more heavily than the red values and being weighted more heavily than the blue values (Watanabe, [0076]: teaches "degrees to which an ordinary person can recognize R, G, and B colors are said to be in a ratio of 3:6:1," where "an ordinary person clearly recognizes G (green) pixels," which means "that flicker is easily recognizable if a large number of G pixels <read on green values being weighted more than red and blue values> have grayscale levels within the first range").
Watanabe is analogous art with respect to Nho, in view of Le because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling dynamic refresh displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement an image determining section that calculates the weighted average of color values as taught by Watanabe into the teaching of Nho, in view of Le. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine potential flicker based on color pixel values, thereby improving the overall user viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Watanabe with Nho, in view of Le.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nho and Le discloses the method of Claim 1. The combination of Nho and Le does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 6; however, Watanabe discloses wherein the low encoded intensity condition includes
a sum of band values meeting a predefined sum threshold (Watanabe, [0076]: teaches "the mage determining section 35 determines whether or not a sum of the weighted values <read on sum of band values> is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value <read on predefined sum threshold>"),
the sum of band values including a number of pixels with encoded intensities within a first range multiplied by a first weighting factor plus a number of pixels with encoded intensities within a second range multiplied by a second weighting factor (Watanabe, [0076]: teaches "the image determining section 35 determines, as the sum of the weighted values, a value obtained by (3×Rr)+(6×Rg)+(1×Rb)," where "degrees to which an ordinary person can recognize R, G, and B colors are said to be in a ratio of 3:6:1"; the ratio values of 3 and 6 are being interpreted as pixels in a first and second range respectively).
Watanabe is analogous art with respect to Nho, in view of Le because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely handling dynamic refresh displays. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement an image determining section that calculates the weighted average of color values as taught by Watanabe into the teaching of Nho, in view of Le. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine potential flicker based on color pixel values, thereby improving the overall user viewing experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Watanabe with Nho, in view of Le.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nho, Le, and Watanabe discloses the method of Claim 6. Additionally, Nho further discloses wherein the predefined sum threshold is based on
a brightness level of the display (Nho, [0039]: teaches using a scaling factor SF to affect the luminance <read on brightness level> of display 14, where an SF of 1.0 results in the luminance being 0.995 L).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cook et al. (US 20180061364 A1) discloses a display that handles visible screen-tears when frames are rendered on screen; and
Holland et al. (US 9652816 B1) discloses adjusting a refresh rate used for driving frames to a display via blank frame insertion.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614