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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see rejections below in the present Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, and 7-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-19 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.
With respect to Claims 1, 7, and 16, [a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the current instance, “wherein the active display area and the eye of the viewer is configured to form an object-image conjugate relationship with respect to the eyepiece” in Claims 1 and 16, and “an image of the active display area in the eye of the viewer has a dimension of less than 2 mm” in Claim 7 recite methods of using the apparatus within method/process claim limitations. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows an eye of a viewer to form an object-image conjugate relationship and comprise an image of an active display area, or whether infringement occurs when an eye of a viewer is configured to form an object-image conjugate relationship/when an object-image conjugate relationship is formed by an eye of a viewer and when an image of an active display area appears in the eye of a viewer. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an optical system and method of forming the same.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Drawings
The applicant's drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer US 20160313556 A1 in view of Xue et al. CN 110596949 A (see machine translation; herein after "Xue").
With respect to Claim 1, Futterer discloses an optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) comprising:
a light source (light source; [0093] & [0174]) configured to generate a light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]), the light beam ([0174]) being coherent or partially coherent (exhibits coherence; [0174]);
a spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) configured to modulate a phase (wave front 710; [0174]) of the light beam (light emitted by light source which has a plane wave front 710 which is modulated by spatial light modulator 200; [0174]); and
an eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) for directing the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]) to an eye of a viewer (fig. 1b), the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) arranged such that an optical distance (as seen in fig. 1b) between the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) and a main plane (major plane; [0179]) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) is greater than a focal length (fig. 1b; [0177]) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]).
Futterer does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) comprises an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm, and wherein the active display area and the eye of the viewer is configured to form an object-image conjugate relationship with respect to the eyepiece.
However, in another field of endeavor, Xue teaches a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and a three-dimensional display device (liquid crystal spatial light modulator to reproduce computer-generated holographic stereoscopic images and construct a three-dimensional display system; [0021] & [0050]), wherein the maximum dimension of a pixel area is no more than 3 microns ([0092]), a pixel unit is less than 1 micron ([0041]; fig. 3), and single-point imaging is performed by a spatial light modulator ([0026]; object plane and image plane are conjugate when light from single point in object plane converges to single point in image plane; as seen in fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical features of an active pixel area being no more than 3 microns and an object-image conjugate relationship through single-point imaging of an SLM, for the purpose of reducing a pixel unit of a spatial light modulator to satisfy a human eye viewing requirement of a three-dimensional object ([0041]), achieve cost reduction ([0044] & [0093]), and improve a diffraction angle of emergent light, as taught by Xue ([0055]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale an active display area of an SLM to be less than 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 3, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1.
Futterer does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the spatial light modulator has a pixel size of less than 2 microns.
However, Xue further teaches a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and a three-dimensional display device ([0021]), wherein a pixel unit is less than 1 micron ([0041]; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical feature of a pixel size being less than 1 micron, for the purpose of reducing a pixel unit of a spatial light modulator to satisfy a human eye viewing requirement of a three-dimensional object ([0041]), achieve cost reduction ([0044]), and improve a diffraction angle of emergent light, as taught by Xue ([0055]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale a pixel size of an SLM to be less than 2 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 4, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is configured to generate a reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) based on a hologram (sub-holograms generated with SLM 200; [0174]) loaded onto the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 5, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 4, wherein a distance (fig. 1a-2) between the reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) and the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) is less than the focal length (fig. 1b; [0177]) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 7, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, and an image (compound modulator image 270; [0181]; defining volume of view for holographic reconstruction; [0177]; Futterer, in combination with Xue; holographic stereoscopic images; [0050]) of the active display area (pixel area; [0092]; Xue) in the eye of the viewer (fig. 1b; Futterer).
Futterer does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the image of the active display area in the eye of the viewer has a dimension of less than 2 mm.
However, Xue further teaches a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and a three-dimensional display device ([0021]), wherein the dimension of the pixel area 210 along the X direction and the dimension along the Y direction may not be greater than 1 micron, so that
the field angle of the image reproduced by the liquid crystal spatial light modulator along the
X direction and the Y direction can reach more than 30 degrees ([0059]; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical feature of a pixel area of a reproduced image being no greater than 1 micron, for the purpose of meeting the human eye’s viewing requirements for three-dimensional objects, as taught by Xue ([0059]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale an active display area of an image to be less than 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 9, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, further comprising:
an eye tracking sub-system (tracking device 600; [0173]) for tracking a movement (tracked to the movements of the eye pupil; [0173]) of the eye of the viewer (observer eye 1000; [0177]); and
a scanning sub-system (light-deflecting device 400; [0180]) in electrical connection ([0173] & [0180]) with the eye tracking sub-system (tracking device 600; [0173]);
wherein the scanning sub-system (light-deflecting device 400; [0180]) is configured to adjust (light-deflecting device 400 comprises two controllable light-deflecting means 410, 420; [0168] & [0173]; fig. 1a) the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) based on the movement of the eye (tracked to the movements of the eye pupil; [0173]) of the viewer (observer eye 1000; [0177]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 11, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) comprises one or more optical see-through elements (magnifying lens 530 fulfils the function of a field lens; [0174] & multiple lenses of magnifying lens system; [0177]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 12, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200 through light-deflecting device 400 comprises two controllable light-deflecting means 410, 420; [0168] & [0181]) comprises an array of nano antennas (multiple segments of controllable liquid crystal gratings comprised of light-deflecting means 410 & 420 as seen in fig. 1a; [0181-182]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 13, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a transmissive spatial light modulator (modulator cells of spatial light modulator can emit light by themselves controllably or work in transmissive or reflective mode to modulate light controllably; [0032]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 14, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is a reflective spatial light modulator (modulator cells of spatial light modulator can emit light by themselves controllably or work in transmissive or reflective mode to modulate light controllably; [0032]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 15, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the light source (light source; [0093] & [0174]) is a laser source or a light emitting diode (laser diodes for illuminating an SLM for holographic encoding and light-emitting diodes; [0093]; Futterer).
With respect to Claim 16, Futterer teaches a method of forming an optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]), the method comprising:
providing a light source (light source; [0093] & [0174]) configured to generate a light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]), the light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]) being coherent or partially coherent (exhibits coherence; [0174]);
providing a spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) configured to modulate a phase (wave front 710; [0174]) of the light beam (collimated light emitted by light source; [0174]); and
arranging an eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) for directing the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]) to an eye of a viewer, the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) arranged such that an optical distance between the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) and a main plane (major plane; [0179]) of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) is greater than a focal length of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]);
Futterer does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) comprises an active display area having a dimension of less than 2 mm, and wherein the active display area and the eye of the viewer is configured to form an object-image conjugate relationship with respect to the eyepiece.
However, in another field of endeavor, Xue teaches a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and a three-dimensional display device (liquid crystal spatial light modulator to reproduce computer-generated holographic stereoscopic images and construct a three-dimensional display system; [0021] & [0050]), wherein the maximum dimension of a pixel area is no more than 3 microns ([0092]), a pixel unit is less than 1 micron ([0041]; fig. 3), and single-point imaging is performed by a spatial light modulator ([0026]; object plane and image plane are conjugate when light from single point in object plane converges to single point in image plane; as seen in fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer to include the technical features of an active pixel area being no more than 3 microns and an object-image conjugate relationship through single-point imaging of an SLM, for the purpose of reducing a pixel unit of a spatial light modulator to satisfy a human eye viewing requirement of a three-dimensional object ([0041]), achieve cost reduction ([0044] & [0093]), and improve a diffraction angle of emergent light, as taught by Xue ([0055]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale an active display area of an SLM to be less than 2 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 18, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is configured to generate a reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) based on a hologram (sub-holograms generated with SLM 200; [0174]) loaded onto the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]; Futterer).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 19, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein a distance between the reconstructed holographic image (3D reconstruction of the holographic information imaged by SLM 200; [0173] & [0189]) and the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]) is less than the focal length of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]; Futterer).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futterer US 20160313556 A1 in view of Xue et al. CN 110596949 A (see machine translation; herein after "Xue"), and further in view of another embodiment of Futterer.
With respect to Claim 2, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, wherein the light beam ([0174]) is incident along a normal axis (aligned with e.g., axis of wave front 710; fig. 1b) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) perpendicular to an optical display area ([0173]) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]);
The first exemplary embodiment of Futterer in view of Xue does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the normal axis (fig. 1b) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is not parallel to a principal axis of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]).
However, in another embodiment of Futterer (fig. 21), Futterer further teaches a normal axis (fig. 21) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0255]) not being parallel to a principal axis (as seen in fig. 21) of an eyepiece (collimation lens 120; [0177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer in view of Xue to include the technical feature of adjusting an eyepiece to not be parallel to an SLM, for the purpose of combining a function of anamorphic stretching with a function of deflecting rays or a wave field to achieve a space-saving folding of an optical path to keep a number of components to a minimum, and thus, reducing the number of active optical elements by optimizing optical design of a system, as taught by Futterer ([0258-249).
With respect to Claim 8, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, and the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
The first exemplary embodiment of Futterer in view of Xue does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the optical system further comprises: a spatial filter configured to remove zero-order diffraction of the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
However, in another embodiment, Futterer (fig. 22) further teaches an aperture mask 590 configured to filter out unwanted diffraction orders generated by the grid of the SLM of a light modulator unit 260 ([0260]), and thus, the zeroth diffraction order can be suppressed with the help of suitable absorbing or filtering means (i.e., filtering by aperture mask 590) so that it does not proceed to the observer eye ([0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2) in view of Xue to include the technical feature of disposing an aperture mask for filtering unwanted components and zero-order diffraction of modulated light, for the purpose of filtering high spatial frequencies of an SLM in order to have the viewing window appear without neighboring higher diffraction orders, and enabling use of fixed or variable diffraction gratings with low diffraction efficiency in light-deflecting means, as taught by Futterer ([0068-70] & [0215]).
With respect to Claim 10, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the optical system (head-mounted display; [0173]) according to claim 1, and the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
The first exemplary embodiment of Futterer in view of Xue does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the optical system further comprises: an attenuator configured to reduce an energy of the modulated light beam (modulated wave fronts 720-740; [0176]).
However, in another embodiment, Futterer (fig. 31) further teaches a micro-lens array 290 configured to improve energy efficiency of an SLM 200 ([0346]), for the individual lenses of the micro-lens array 290 concentrate light to modulator cells of the SLM 200, and the transitional regions between the modulator cells receive as little light as possible so that they cannot generate any disturbing stray light; the light modulated by the modulator cells is expanded by the lenses of the micro-lens array 290 and passes through a flat front light unit 150 as a modulated wave front 240 ([0347]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer (fig. 1a-2) in view of Xue to include the technical feature of disposing a micro-lens array for reducing energy of modulated light, for the purpose of increasing the luminous efficacy of an SLM and/or reduce edge effects in transitional regions between individual modulator cells of an SLM, as taught by Futterer ([0124-126] & [0346-347]).
With respect to Claim 17, Futterer in view of Xue teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the beam ([0174]) is incident along a normal axis of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) perpendicular to an optical display area ([0173]) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]);
The first exemplary embodiment of Futterer in view of Xue does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the normal axis (fig. 1b) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0174]) is not parallel to a principal axis of the eyepiece (magnifying lens 530; [0177]).
However, in another embodiment of Futterer (fig. 21), Futterer further teaches a normal axis (fig. 21) of the spatial light modulator (SLM 200; [0255]) not being parallel to a principal axis (as seen in fig. 21) of an eyepiece (collimation lens 120; [0177]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head-mounted display of Futterer in view of Xue to include the technical feature of adjusting an eyepiece to not be parallel to an SLM, for the purpose of combining a function of anamorphic stretching with a function of deflecting rays or a wave field to achieve a space-saving folding of an optical path to keep a number of components to a minimum, and thus, reducing the number of active optical elements by optimizing optical design of a system, as taught by Futterer ([0258-249).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2 December 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872