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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the USC 112(a) issues.
Applicant’s amendments do not appear to have resolved the USC 102/103 issues with Lin, Oikawa, Yi. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the “motors are configured to rotate the shaft to position the optical assembly based on an eye relief and an interpupillary distance…motors are configured to increase a spacing…in response to the eye relief exceeding a threshold”. The conditions on which are motor rotate and change spacing do not structurally or functionally define the motor. The motor is necessarily configured to rotate and increase/decrease spacing for whatever signals are sent to the drive the motor. Such language appears directed to the intended reason and desired manner of operating the device (MPEP 2114). Thus, for claim 1, the combination of Lin and Oikawa is a HMD with motor driven movable eyepieces which can be set to less than, equal to, or greater than IPD spacing as per the necessary signals to the motor/movable eyepieces.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar features thus it is presumed the prior art motors are necessarily configured to position the left/right optical assemblies as per whatever driving signals are sent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “motors configured to rotate the shaft to position the optical assemblies bases on an eye relief and an interpupillary distance…the motors are configured to increase a spacing between the optical assemblies beyond the interpupillary distance in response to the eye relief exceeding a threshold” which is a function that does not appear to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)) as well as the intended operation of the device (MPEP 2114). As those of ordinary skill in the art understand, such motors are “configured to” position as per the drive signals sent to it, thus the motors are necessarily configured to rotate the shaft and increase spacing based on the associated signals. As claimed, it is unclear how the motor performs such positioning absent any element to direct the motors/motor signals. Are the motors communicating with some processor? Some driver? How does the motor operate “in response to”. What’s a response?
The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the claim requires some other component (processor? driver?) to direct the motors to operate based on the IPD and/or eye relief, or if such recitation is merely the desired manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the apparatus (MPEP 2114).
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches the HMD with motors configured to rotate a shaft to change positions of the optical assembly(ies), the condition to operate based on IPD and eye relief are presumed implicit.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “eye relief being greater than a threshold” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the threshold appears arbitrary, thus how to determine if the eye relief is greater than such threshold appears entirely subjective. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches the motors configured to position the assemblies at various IPDs, such limitation will be considered met.
Claims 3-6, 8 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “the motors are further configured to adjust the position of the optical assembles based on a skin tautness” which is a function that does not follow from the claimed structure of the motors (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, Applicant’s motors have no means to determine any skin tautness, thus how such motors are configured to adjust based on such skin tautness is unclear. How does a motor infringe the ability to adjust based on skin tautness if such motors have no means/structure to determine skin tautness (MPEP 2173.05(g)) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Furthermore, such language appears directed to the manner of operating the motors - i.e. user experiences tight/loose skin and adjusts the optical assemblies. Such manner of operating the device does not distinguish the device (MPEP 2114).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the prior art motors can adjust the position of the optical assemblies, such manner of operating the device is necessarily present.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “left and right motors…configured to respectively position…optical assemblies based on eye relief and an interpupillary distance…motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the measured interpupillary distance in response to the eye relief being greater than a threshold” which is a function that does not appear to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)) as well as the intended operation of the device (MPEP 2114). As those of ordinary skill in the art understand, such motors are “configured to” position as per the drive signals sent to it, thus the motors are necessarily configured to rotate the shaft and increase spacing based on the associated signals. As claimed, it is unclear how the motor performs such positioning absent any element to direct the motors/motor signals. Are the motors communicating with some processor? Some driver? How does the motor operate “in response to”. What’s a response?
The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the claim requires some other component (processor? driver?) to direct the motors to operate based on the IPD and/or eye relief, or if such recitation is merely the desired manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the apparatus (MPEP 2114).
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches the HMD with motors configured to rotate a shaft to change positions of the optical assembly(ies), the condition to operate based on IPD and eye relief are presumed implicit.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “eye relief being greater than a threshold” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the threshold appears arbitrary, thus how to determine if the eye relief is greater than such threshold appears entirely subjective. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches the motors configured to position the assemblies at various IPDs, such limitation will be considered met.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16 are rejected as dependent upon claim 9.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “configured to adjust separation…based on the interpupillary distance being below a predetermined interpupillary distance threshold” which is relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, predetermined relative to when, what? Additionally, the threshold appears arbitrary, thus how to determine if the IPD is below a predetermined IPD threshold appears entirely subjective. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches the motors configured to position the assemblies at various IPDs, such limitation will be considered met.
As to claim 16, the claim recites “motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the interpupillary distance based on a skin tautness” which is a function that does not follow from the claimed structure of the motors (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, Applicant’s motors have no means to determine any skin tautness, thus how such motors are configured to adjust based on such skin tautness is unclear. How does a motor infringe the ability to adjust based on skin tautness if such motors have no means/structure to determine skin tautness (MPEP 2173.05(g)) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Furthermore, such language appears directed to the manner of operating the motors - i.e. user experiences tight/loose skin and adjusts the optical assemblies. Such manner of operating the device does not distinguish the device (MPEP 2114).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the prior art motors can adjust the position of the optical assemblies, such manner of operating the device is necessarily present.
As to claim 17, the claim recites a “motor configured to rotate the shaft to adjust a position of the optical assemblies to be greater than an interpupillary distance of a user in response to an eye relief being greater than an eye relief threshold” which is a function that does not appear to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)) as well as the intended operation of the device (MPEP 2114). As those of ordinary skill in the art understand, such motors are “configured to” position as per the drive signals sent to it, thus the motors are necessarily configured to rotate the shaft and increase spacing based on the associated signals. As claimed, it is unclear how the motor performs such positioning absent any element to direct the motors/motor signals. Are the motors communicating with some processor? Some driver? How does the motor operate “in response to”. What’s a response?
The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the claim requires some other component (processor? driver?) to direct the motors to operate based on the IPD and/or eye relief, or if such recitation is merely the desired manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the apparatus (MPEP 2114).
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches the HMD with motors configured to rotate a shaft to change positions of the optical assembly(ies), the condition to operate based on IPD and eye relief are presumed implicit.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “eye relief being greater than a threshold” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the threshold appears arbitrary, thus how to determine if the eye relief is greater than such threshold appears entirely subjective. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches the motors configured to position the assemblies at various IPDs, such limitation will be considered met.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as dependent upon claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2021/0037232 - Lin; of record).
As to claim 9, Lin teaches a head mounted device (Lin Fig. 1) comprising
a head mounted housing (Lin Fig. 1 - 30);
left and right optical assemblies in the head-mounted housing that are separated by a separation distance and that are configured to provide respective left and right images to left and right eye boxes (Lin Fig. 1 - 110a, 120a, 110b, 120b; para. [0020]);
a left gaze tracker comprising a first light source and a second camera in the left optical assembly (Lin Fig. 1 - 140a, 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a);
a right gaze tracker comprising a second light source and a second camera in the right optical assembly (Lin Fig. 1 - 140b; 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a),
and left and right motors coupled to the left and right optical assemblies (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]) configured to respectively position the left and right optical assemblies based on an eye relief and an interpupillary distance (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 2 - S202, S206), wherein the left and right motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the IPD distance in response to the eye relief being greater than a threshold (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6 - P2a, P2b; para. [0037], [0039] - as discussed, and show in Formulas 1, 2, 3, 4, the optical assemblies (110a,b) can be moved to any necessary separation distance including greater than, less, or equal to the IPD, based on the eye relief (Formula 1); where the value of Formula 1 is necessarily greater than any arbitrary threshold).
As to claim 11, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Lin further teaches the left and right motors are further configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the IPD based on the IPD being below a predetermined threshold IPD (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6; para. [0038], [0039]).
As to claim 16 (as understood), Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Lin further teaches the left and right motors are configured to adjust the separation distance to be greater than the interpupillary distance based on a skin tautness (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024] - stepping motors). As discussed above, claim 16 is directed to the intended reason for adjusting the optical assemblies and manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the motors from the prior art of Lin (MPEP 2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (cited above) in view of Oikawa et al. (US 2023/0066962 - Oikawa; of record).
As to claim 1, Lin teaches a head mounted device configured to be worn by a user (Lin Fig. 1) the head mounted device comprising
a head mounted housing (Lin Fig. 1 - 30);
a shaft in the head-mounted housing (Lin Fig. 1 - 20);
optical assemblies in the head mounted housing that are configured to provide images to eye boxes (Lin Fig. 1 - 10a,b 120a,b; para. [0020]), wherein each of the optical assemblies are coupled to the shaft (Lin Fig. 1 - 20, 110a, 110b);
a gaze tracker comprising a light source and a camera (Lin Fig. 1 - 140a, 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a);
a motors (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]) configured to position the optical assemblies based on an eye relief an measured interpupillary distance of the user (Lin Fig. 2 - S202, S203, S206, S207),
wherein the motors are configured to increase a spacing between the optical assemblies beyond the interpupillary distance in response to the eye relief exceeding a threshold (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6 - P2a, P2b; para. [0037], [0039] - as discussed, and show in Formulas 1, 2, 3, 4, the optical assemblies (110a,b) can be moved to any necessary separation distance including greater than, less, or equal to the IPD, based on the eye relief (Formula 1); where the value of Formula 1 is necessarily greater than any arbitrary threshold).
Lin doesn’t specify the shaft is a rotating shaft driven by the motor. In the same field of endeavor Oikawa teaches HMD having motors and rotating shafts (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide rotating shaft driving since, as taught by Oikawa, such mechanisms are well known in the art for the purpose of adjusting HMD IPD (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]).
As to claim 3, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the motors are configured to adjust the position of the optical assemblies outwards by a first amount in response to the eye relief being more than the threshold and the interpupillary distance having a first value (Lin Fig. 2; Fig. 3A; Fig. 4; para. [0031], [0037]-[0039]; Fig. 7) and are configured to move the optical assembly outwards by a second amount that is more than the first amount in response to the eye relief being more than the threshold and the interpupillary distance having a second value that is less than the first value (Lin Fig. 2; Fig. 3B; Fig. 4; para. [0031], [0037]-[0039]; Fig. 7).
As to claim 6, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the motors are configured to move the optical assemblies to provide an alert (Lin Fig. 2 - S207; Figs. 3A,B).
As to claim 8 (as understood), Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the motors are configured to adjust the position of the optical assemblies based on skin tautness (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024] - stepping motors). As discussed above, claim 8 is directed to the intended reason for adjusting the optical assemblies and manner of operating the device which does not differentiate the motors from the prior art of Lin (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 17, Lin teaches a head mounted device (Lin fig. 1 - 100) comprising
a shaft (Lin Fig. 1 - 20)
optical assemblies (Lin Fig. 1 - 110a, 120a, 130a, 20; [0020]) each having a lens coupled to the shaft (Lin Fig. 1 - 130a; para. [0020]), a display configured to display an image to an eye box through the lens (Lin Fig. 1 - 120a; para. [0020]), and a gaze tracker comprising a light source and a camera (Lin Fig. 1 - 140a, 160; para. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 5A-C - 160a, 140a); and
a motor configured to adjust a position of the optical assemblies to be greater than an IPD of a user in response to an eye relief being greater than an eye relief threshold (Lin Figs. 3A,B; Fig. 6 - P2a, P2b; para. [0037], [0039] - as discussed, and show in Formulas 1, 2, 3, 4, the optical assemblies (110a,b) can be moved to any necessary separation distance including greater than, less, or equal to the IPD, based on the eye relief (Formula 1); where the value of Formula 1 is necessarily greater than any arbitrary threshold).
Lin doesn’t specify the shaft is a rotating shaft driven by the motor. In the same field of endeavor Oikawa teaches HMD having motors and rotating shafts (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide rotating shaft driving since, as taught by Oikawa, such mechanisms are well known in the art for the purpose of adjusting HMD IPD (Oikawa Fig. 2A - 21L, 22L, 22R, 21R; para. [0032], [0033]).
As to claim 18, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Lin further teaches a head-mounted housing and a guide rail in the head-mounted housing along which the optical assemblies slide (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]), wherein the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assemblies by moving the optical assemblies along the rail based on the eye relief (Lin Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0024]; Fig. 2 - S202, S203, S207; para. [0031] - Formula 1; para. [0037]-[0038] - Formulas 2, 3, 4).
As to claim 19, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assemblies based on the IPD (Lin Fig. 2 - S206, S207).
As to claim 20, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 19, and Lin further teaches the motor is configured to adjust the position of the optical assemblies outwardly away from a center portion of the head-mounted housing based on the IPD and the eye relief (Lin Figs. 3A, 3B; para. [0031], [0037], [0038]).
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2018/0157043 - Yi; of record).
As to claim 4, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Lin teaches the motors are configured to position the optical assemblies based on information (Lin Figs. 1-3), Lin doesn’t specify a magnetic vision correction lens sensor/presence sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Yi teaches HMD having a magnetic vision correction lens sensor (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a magnetic correction lens sensor since, as taught by Yi, such sensors allow for sensing lens inserts and controlling the HMD based on the inserted lens (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]-[0159]).
As to claim 5, Lin in view of Oikawa and Yi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lin teaches the motor is configured to position the optical assembly based on information (Lin Figs. 1-3) and Yi teaches the optical assembly is configured to receive the removable correction lens with a magnet the produces a magnetic field (Yi Figs. 2B,C - 231, 104; para. [0128]) and control an optical assembly of the HMD based on the magnetic sensor information (Yi Fig. 5A - S501, 504, 505).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2018/0157043 - Yi; of record).
As to claim 13, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and while Lin teaches the motor is configured to position the optical assembly based on information (Lin Figs. 1-3), Lin doesn’t specify a vision correction lens sensor/presence sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Yi teaches HMD having a magnetic vision correction lens sensor (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]) and control an optical assembly of the HMD based on the magnetic sensor information (Yi Fig. 5A - S501, 504, 505). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a magnetic correction lens sensor since, as taught by Yi, such sensors allow for sensing lens inserts and controlling the HMD based on the inserted lens (Yi Fig. 1 - 140; Fig. 2B - 231, 104; Fig. 2C - 231; para. [0128]; Fig. 5A; para. [0157]).
As to claim 14, Lin in view of Yi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 13, and Yi further teaches the left and right optical assemblies are configured to receive left and right vision correction lenses, respectively (Yi Figs. 2A,B), and wherein the magnetic vision correction lens presence sensor comprises a magnetic sensor configured to measure a magnetic field from the left or right vision correction lens (Yi Figs. 2B, C - 231, 104; para. [0128]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2022/0382062; of record).
Examiner’s note: The USC 103 rejection of claim 8 is provided for the interpretation the claim is directed to more than the manner of operating the device or the intended reason for adjusting the optical assemblies
As to claim 8, Lin in view of Oikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Lin teaches adjusting the IPD (Lin Fig. 2 - S207), doesn’t specify adjustment based on skin tautness. In the same field of endeavor Cheng teaches head mounted devices measuring skin tautness (Cheng Fig. 7 - 702; Fig. 8 - 804; para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]) and adjusting the HMD (Cheng Fig. 8 - 806; para. [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust a HMD based skin tautness since, as taught by Cheng, such measurements allow for determining a comfortable fit of the HMD (Cheng para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2022/0382062; of record).
Examiner’s note: The USC 103 rejection of claim 16 is provided for the interpretation the claim is directed to more than the manner of operating the device or the intended reason for adjusting the optical assemblies
As to claim 16, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and while Lin teaches adjusting the IPD (Lin Fig. 2 - S207) doesn’t specify adjustment based on skin tautness. In the same field of endeavor Cheng teaches head mounted devices measuring skin tautness (Cheng Fig. 7 - 702; Fig. 8 - 804; para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]) and adjusting the HMD (Cheng Fig. 8 - 806; para. [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust a HMD based skin tautness since, as taught by Cheng, such measurements allow for determining a comfortable fit of the HMD (Cheng para. [0014], [0047]-[0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights