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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC 101 Alice
Applicant submits in Step 2A, Prong 1 that claims are not a mental process because they require image processing/display operations (e.g. “receive a portion of a scene”, “adjust an initial luminance based on a light pollution model”, and “render on a display”)
After reviewing applicant arguments, claimed limitations and 35 USC 101 Alice guidance, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, examiner submits under broadest reasonable interpretation, “receiving” a scene portion, “using a light pollution model,”, “adjusting luminance”, and “rendering” can be characterized as collecting/receiving information, analyzing it using a model and displaying the result (e.g. abstract idea). The recited “display”, “memory”, “processing circuitry”, are viewed as generic computer components doing conventional functions, which keep the claims in an abstract idea environment.
Applicant submits in Step 2A, Prong 2 that even if examiner characterizes “adjusting luminance based on a model” as abstract, the claims are integrated into a practical application because they improve display technology.
After reviewing applicant arguments, claimed limitations and 35 USC 101 Alice guidance, examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, examiner submits applicant submitted improvement is an intended result, but the claims do not recite a specific technological solution that changes the functioning of the computer/display itself. The claim merely characterizes to “use a model to adjust luminance and render (i.e. apply an abstract idea using generic components). Examiner submits adding generic components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant submits in Step 2B that claims are more than merely “applying it on a computer” because it recites display/image processing constraints tied to real world light pollution and device behavior, rather than generic math.
After reviewing applicant arguments, claimed limitations and 35 USC 101 Alice guidance, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, examiner submits the additional device elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional computer functions so they do not add significantly more.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5, 14 & 20 filed 11/03/2025. Applicants arguments filed on (11/03/2025) have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 14 & 20
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 14 & 20 - “Systems”, “Apparatuses” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “receiving a portion of a scene to be displayed on a display with an initial luminance; adjusting the initial luminance for the portion of the scene to a final luminance based on a light pollution model associated with the display, wherein the light pollution model is based on scattering coefficients within a calibration image; and rendering the scene to the display with the portion of the scene having the final luminance.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry, display” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuitry, display” language, “receiving, adjusting, rendering” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a “processing circuitry, display” to perform “receiving, adjusting, rendering” steps. The “processing circuitry, display” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “receiving a portion of a scene to be displayed on a display with an initial luminance; adjusting the initial luminance for the portion of the scene to a final luminance based on a light pollution model associated with the display, wherein the light pollution model is based on scattering coefficients within a calibration image; and rendering the scene to the display with the portion of the scene having the final luminance.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processing circuitry, display” to perform “receiving, adjusting, rendering” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to mental process (“generating the light pollution model”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“at least one calibration operation”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to mental process (“determining light pollution”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“use of generic sensors and standard capture/display”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“selecting a checkboard or striped test pattern”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to mental process (“computing coefficients)” and insignificant extra-solution activity (“deriving per-zone coefficients from sensor data”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“Mapping zones to pixels”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to mental process (“forming correction factors”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“mapping existing coefficients to correction values”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to, mental process (“tone mapping” and insignificant extra-solution activity (“standard tone mapping”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to mental process (“threshold-based selection”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“if-then logic”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to mental process (“simple subtraction”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“no unconventional technique”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to mental process (“if-then subtraction”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“standard conditional adjustment”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 12, this claim is directed to mental process (“linear or other scaling factors”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“gradual scaling”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 13, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“per-pixel granularity”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 15, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processing circuitry”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“generic hardware performing routine math”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 16, this claim is directed to mental process (“conditional selection/subtraction”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“routine conditional logic”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 17, this claim is directed to mental process (“simple scaling function”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“well known data scaling”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 18, this claim is directed to mental process (“conditional subtraction”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“routine logic”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 19, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“per pixel mapping”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
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 of this title, 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, 13-15 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Van Baar et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0175904) in view of Molholm (U.S. Patent 10,911,748)
As to claims 1, 14 & 20, Van Baar discloses a method of reducing light pollution in a displayed image, the method comprising: receiving a portion of a scene to be displayed on a display with an initial luminance (600, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses input image 600 is stored in a current image storage 602, Fig. 6); adjusting the initial luminance for the portion of the scene to a final luminance based on a light pollution model associated with the display (604, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses a pollution estimator determines a pollution function that represents the light pollution for every pixel in the image(s). See Pollution Function p(); Mask estimator 606 filters perceptually; optimizer 608 solves for compensated image ([0054]). See Abstract & [0011-0012] wherein images are displayed such that unintended light is also included and that light cannot be fully subtracted from the displayed image.); and rendering the scene to the display with the portion of the scene having the final luminance (610, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses outputting produced by the image processor. (Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses generating a compensated image 610 (for display or storage for later display) from an input image 600).
Van Baar is silent to wherein the light pollution model is based on scattering coefficients within a calibration image.
However, Molholm’s discloses wherein the light pollution model is based on scattering coefficients within a calibration image. (104. Fig. 5 & Col. 10 Lines 30-40 discloses displaying one or more test images or test patterns)(Col. 8 discloses comparing the received light signals and generating calibration data. This calibration data may be a 3-D look up table and/or 3x3 matrix (e.g. scattered coefficients).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve the accuracy and device specific tuning of the light pollution compensation for a given display system.
As to claim 2, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Van Baar discloses generating the light pollution model based on at least one calibration operation. (604, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses a pollution estimator determines a pollution function that represents the light pollution for every pixel in the image(s). See Pollution Function p(); Mask estimator 606 filters perceptually; optimizer 608 solves for compensated image ([0054]). See Abstract & [0011-0012] wherein images are displayed such that unintended light is also included and that light cannot be fully subtracted from the displayed image.)
As to claim 3, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Van Baar discloses wherein the at least one calibration operation includes: displaying a calibration image on the display; capturing, with one or more image sensors, the calibration image displayed on the display; and determining light pollution for one or more zones of the calibration image based on the captured calibration image. (a) Input Image 600 may be any test pattern displayed for compensation. (b) pollution estimator 604 measures pixel intensities (c) Mask estimator 606 partitions the image into perceptual zones and computes local pollution contributions. (See Fig. 6 & Corresponding Disclosure)
As to claim 5, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 3 but is silent to wherein determining the light pollution for the one or more zones of the calibration image includes: determining scattering coefficients for the one or more zones of the captured calibration image.
However, Molholm discloses wherein determining the light pollution for the one or more zones of the calibration image includes: determining scattering coefficients for the one or more zones of the captured calibration image. ([108], Fig. 5 & Col. 10 Line 49-67 discloses generating calibration data for a display measured from light 70)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve correction accuracy.
As to claim 6, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 5. In addition, Van Baar discloses wherein each zone of the captured calibration image corresponds to a single pixel of the display. ([0027] discloses that the input image is expressed as a 2D array of pixel color values and the light pollution is also expresses as a 2D array of the pixel color values.)
As to claim 7, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 5. In addition, Van Baar discloses generating a correction factor for each zone of the calibration image based on the determined scattering coefficients. ([0054, 0056] discloses the optimizer 608 computes a compensation image. See Abstract & [0011-0012] wherein images are displayed such that unintended light is also included and that light cannot be fully subtracted from the displayed image.)
As to claim 13, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Van Baar discloses wherein the portion of the scene corresponds to a single pixel. ([0027] discloses that the input image is expressed as a 2D array of pixel color values and the light pollution is also expresses as a 2D array of the pixel color values.) (610, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses outputting produced by the image processor. (Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses generating a compensated image 610 (for display or storage for later display) from an input image 600).
As to claim 15, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 14. In addition, Van Baar discloses wherein the processing circuitry adjusts the initial luminance of the portion of the scene to the final luminance based on the light pollution model by: selecting, based on a luminance threshold and the initial luminance, a correction factor; and applying the selected correction factor to the portion of the scene to adjust the initial luminance to the final luminance. (604, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses a pollution estimator determines a pollution function that represents the light pollution for every pixel in the image(s). See Pollution Function p(); Mask estimator 606 filters perceptually; optimizer 608 solves for compensated image ([0054]). See Abstract & [0011-0012] wherein images are displayed such that unintended light is also included and that light cannot be fully subtracted from the displayed image.)
As to claim 19, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Van Baar discloses wherein the portion of the scene corresponds to a single pixel of the display. ([0027] discloses that the input image is expressed as a 2D array of pixel color values and the light pollution is also expresses as a 2D array of the pixel color values.) (610, Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses outputting produced by the image processor. (Fig. 6 & [0054] discloses generating a compensated image 610 (for display or storage for later display) from an input image 600).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Baar et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0175904) in view of Molholm (U.S. Patent 10,911,748) as applied in claim 3 above further in view of Krueger et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0287402)
As to claim 4, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 3 but is silent to wherein the calibration image includes a black and white image with a repeating pattern.
However, Krueger’s [0031], for example discloses target 170 including calibration pattern which may be checkerboard pattern comprises black and white checkboard patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to calibrate light.
Claims 8-12 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Baar et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0175904) in view of Molholm (U.S. Patent 10,911,748) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of SELFI et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0167597)
As to claim 8, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 7 but is silent to wherein the correction factor includes a tone map operator for luminance adjustments.
However, SELFI’s [0010, 0035] for example discloses wherein the correction factor includes a tone map operator for luminance adjustments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to preserve detail in both shadows and highlights.
As to claim 9, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein adjusting the initial luminance of the portion of the scene to the final luminance based on the light pollution model includes: selecting, based on a luminance threshold and the initial luminance, a correction factor; and applying the selected correction factor to the portion of the scene to adjust the initial luminance to the final luminance.
However, SELFI’s [0010, 0035] for example discloses wherein adjusting the initial luminance of the portion of the scene to the final luminance based on the light pollution model includes: selecting, based on a luminance threshold and the initial luminance, a correction factor; and applying the selected correction factor to the portion of the scene to adjust the initial luminance to the final luminance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to ensure that bright pixels are fully compensated while darker pixels retain perceptual detail.
As to claim 10, Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI discloses everything as disclosed in claim 9
is silent to wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is above the luminance threshold, a first correction factor that reduces the initial luminance of the portion of the scene by a first amount to the final luminance, the first amount being substantially equivalent to an amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model.
However, SELFI’s [0022, 0060, 0063] discloses wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is above the luminance threshold, a first correction factor that reduces the initial luminance of the portion of the scene by a first amount to the final luminance, the first amount being substantially equivalent to an amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model. (Linear segment corresponds to full subtraction above the knee is a straightforward design choice)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to offsets predicted pollution in bright zones.
As to claim 11, Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI discloses everything as disclosed in claim 10 is silent to wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is at or below the luminance threshold, a second correction factor that reduces the initial luminance by a second amount that is less than the amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model, the second correction factor being different than the first correction factor.
However, SELFI discloses wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is at or below the luminance threshold, a second correction factor that reduces the initial luminance by a second amount that is less than the amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model, the second correction factor being different than the first correction factor. (201, Fig. 2 & [0118] discloses receiving parameters for content dependent threshold. Block 201 are utilized for estimating content dependent threshold.)(Block 201 content dependent threshold estimation implies using a gentler compressive curve below the knee.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to avoid underflow and preserve shadow detail.
As to claim 12, Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI discloses everything as disclosed in claim 11 is silent to wherein the second amount becomes lower as the initial luminance moves further below the luminance threshold.
However, SELFI discloses wherein the second amount becomes lower as the initial luminance moves further below the luminance threshold. (Dynamic modulation of the knee point based on pixel statistics teaches that as values fall further from the threshold, the compression amount smoothly decreases)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to yield a smoothly decreasing compression amount for darker pixels.
As to claim 16, Van Baar in view of Molholm discloses everything as disclosed in claim 15 but is silent to wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is at or below the luminance threshold, a first correction factor that reduces the initial luminance by a first amount that is less than an amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model.
However, SELFI discloses wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is at or below the luminance threshold, a first correction factor that reduces the initial luminance by a first amount that is less than an amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to compensate for apparatus limitations.
As to claim 17, Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI discloses everything as disclosed in claim 16 but is silent to wherein the first amount becomes lower as the initial luminance moves further below the luminance threshold.
However, SELFI discloses wherein the first amount becomes lower as the initial luminance moves further below the luminance threshold. (See Dynamic Threshold adjustment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to perform smaller corrections for darker pixels.
As to claim 18, Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI discloses everything as disclosed in claim 16 but is silent to wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is above the luminance threshold, a second correction factor that reduces the initial luminance of the portion of the scene by a second amount to the final luminance, the second amount being substantially equivalent to the amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model.
However, SELFI discloses wherein selecting the correction factor includes selecting, when the initial luminance is above the luminance threshold, a second correction factor that reduces the initial luminance of the portion of the scene by a second amount to the final luminance, the second amount being substantially equivalent to the amount of light pollution predicted for the portion of the scene by the light pollution model. (See Linear Segment above the knee in processing circuitry)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Van Baar in view of Molholm & SELFI’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to yield a first correction factor equal to the pollution function.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675