DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed November 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues on Page 11 of the Remarks that the prior art does not teach detecting a number of rays intersecting each surface of a set of surfaces, wherein each surface is associated with rays from one of an x-direction, a y-direction, or a z-direction, and updating a cost function based on the number of rays intersecting each surface of the set of surfaces. Applicant also argues that a fragment as disclosed in Bittner et al. (“RDH: Ray Distribution Heuristics for Construction of Spatial Data Structures”), hereinafter referred to as Bittner, is not equivalent to a surface.
Examiner replies that Bittner teaches the left and right fragments have surfaces of at least one of an x, y, and z direction in Section 6.2. Figure 4 in Section 6.2 tracks the ray boundary intersections for each axis ray boundary and thus teaches the fragments have surfaces.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that fragments are not equivalent to a surface because the fragments are 2D or 3D sub-regions of a 2D/3D region/volume and that surfaces are a 1D/2D boundary of a 2D/3D region/volume. From the applicant’s definition, the fragments can include surfaces since the fragments are a 2D/3D region. However, Bittner does not define fragments in the way defined by the Applicant and the Applicant’s definition of surface is not in the claim language. Instead, Bittner implies in Section 5.2 that the fragments are a left and ride side of the bounding box. The bounding box has a surface and the right and left fragments consist of the bounding box’s surfaces. This is further proven in Section 4 Figure 1 where surface areas for the fragments are identified. Thus, the fragment can be considered to teach surfaces.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., surface being a "1-dimensional (1D)/2D ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
6. Applicant argues that Bittner does not teach the amended claims 8, 10, 24, and 26.
Examiner replies that claims 10 and 26 are already objected to as allowable subject matter for their dependency on claims 9 and 25 respectively.
Claim 8 and 24 however are still taught. Bittner teaches in Section 5.2, Equation 3 a right and left fragment, which are the right and left fragments of the bounding box, with the number of rays intersecting it. The right and left fragment can be considered the first and second surface and the number of rays ‘R_R’ and ‘R_L’ intersecting those surfaces is identified; Section 4, Equation 2 identifies the right and left fragment’s surface area ‘S_R’ and ‘S_L’; Section 6.2 also teaches sorting “all three sets of initial ray boundaries, one set of ray boundaries for each axis.” Figure 4 also shows the three axes being x, y, and z with a subset of the rays (N) belonging to each of the axes. This teaches an x, y, and z surface where the rays intersect and these surfaces associated with a set of boundary boxes from the boundary stack. The rays listed in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction ray boundary also are recorded intersecting the right or left fragment. Thus, one can identify a first number of rays from the x-direction and y-direction intersecting a first and second surface and is included in the number of rays intersecting the right and left fragments.
Thus, the dependent claims 8 and 24 are still rejected by the prior art.
7. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claim(s) 1-8, 15, 17-24, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinkler et al. (“Visibility Driven BVH Build Up Algorithm for Ray Tracing” – cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Vinkler, in view of Bittner et al. (“RDH: Ray Distribution Heuristics for Construction of Spatial Data Structures”), hereinafter referred to as Bittner.
11. Regarding claim 1, Vinkler teaches an apparatus for graphics processing, comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and, based on information stored in the memory (Section 5, Paragraph 1 mentions running the method with a PC which inherently contains a processor and memory. Also mentions the Intel Core as the processor with 16 GB of RAM as a memory), the processor is configured to: obtain a set of first bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) structures including a plurality of first nodes (Section 3.1.1. mentions building the BVH and computing a cost function to determine the best split over all three axes. Running the BVH through a cost function inherently involves an indication of the presence of the BVH data structure. This can be considered the set of first BVH structures with nodes), wherein the set of first BVH structures is representative of first geometry data for a plurality of first primitives in a set of first frames (Section 1, Paragraph 1-2 mentions hierarchical data structures encode spatial regions or objects and that BVH is a hierarchical data structure. The encoded spatial region can be considered geometry data; Section 3.1.1 mentions the BVH consists of nodes which contain triangles. The nodes can be considered the plurality of first nodes for a set of first BVH structures and the triangles can be considered the plurality of first primitives; Section 5.5 mentions running the method on an animation that has 100 frames. This can be considered creating a BVH representative of the first geometry data for the first primitives in a set of first frames in the animation), wherein each of the plurality of first nodes is associated with a first primitive of the plurality of first primitives (Section 3.1.1 mentions the BVH nodes contain triangles. The triangle in each node can be considered the first primitive of the plurality of first primitives);
update a cost function (Section 4.1, Paragraph 1 and Equation 4 show a modified cost model which is updated based on the number of visible triangles)
and configure, based on the updated cost function, a set of second BVH structures including a plurality of second nodes (Section 3.1.1 mentions the BVH consists of nodes which contain triangles. The nodes can be considered the plurality of second nodes for a set of second BVH structures and the triangles can be considered the plurality of second primitives), wherein the set of second BVH structures is representative of second geometry data for a plurality of second primitives in a set of second frames (Section 1, Paragraph 1-2 mentions hierarchical data structures encode spatial regions or objects and that BVH is one hierarchical data structure. The encoded spatial region can be considered geometry data; Section 5.5, Paragraph 1-2 mentions running the method on an animation that has 100 frames and using the triangle visibility estimated from the previous frame to create the BVH for the current frame. The previous frame can be considered the set of first frames and the current frame can be considered the set of second frames. The BVH created for the set of second frames can be considered representative of second geometry data from those second frames), and wherein each of the plurality of second nodes is associated with a second primitive of the plurality of second primitives (Section 3.1.1 mentions the BVH nodes contain triangles. The triangle in each node can be considered the second primitive of the plurality of second primitives).
However, Vinkler fails to teach detect a number of rays that intersect each surface of a set of surfaces associated with each BVH structure of the set of first BVH structures, wherein each surface in the set of surfaces is associated with rays from one of an x-direction, a y-direction, or a z-direction; and updating a cost function based on the number of rays that intersect each surface of the set of surfaces.
Bittner teaches detect a number of rays that intersect each surface of a set of surfaces associated with each BVH structure of the set of first BVH structures, wherein each surface in the set of surfaces is associated with rays from one of an x-direction, a y-direction, or a z-direction (Section 3 teaches using ray distribution for surface area heuristics. The ray distribution includes a set of rays cast in the current frame. The set of rays is used to track all rays intersecting the leaf nodes; Section 5.2 teaches calculating a probability of a ray passing through one of the fragments of the bounding boxes. The calculation includes counting the number of rays intersecting the left and right fragments. The Applicant argues that fragments are not equivalent to a surface because the fragments are 2D or 3D sub-regions of a 2D/3D region/volume and that surfaces are a 1D/2D boundary of a 2D/3D region/volume. From the applicant’s definition, the fragments can include surfaces since they are a 2D/3D region. Furthermore, Bittner does not define fragments in that way and implies in Section 5.2 that the fragments are a left and ride side of the bounding box. The bounding box has a surface and the right and left fragments consist of the bounding box’s surfaces. Thus, the fragment can be considered to teach surfaces; Section 6.2 and Figure 4 teaches detecting the rays intersecting each BVH structure or bounding box using a data structure rays (N). The data structure rays(N) keeps track of the ray intersecting an x, y, or z ray boundary and assigning it which side of the bounding box it intersects. The bounding box or fragments are associated with ray boundaries in the x-direction, y-direction, and z-direction. These boundaries teach a surface associated with rays coming from an x, y, or z direction based on which surface they intersect); and updating a cost function based on the number of rays that intersect each surface of the set of surfaces (Section 5.3, Equation 6 teaches a cost function which is updated based on the probability of rays intersecting either the left or right surface or fragment. The calculation of the probability comes from counting the number of rays intersecting each side, shown in Equation 3, which is also tracked in Figure 4. Figure 4 teaches detecting a number of rays intersecting each surface of the set of surfaces. Equation 4 incorporates that number of rays intersecting each side or surface into a blended probability with the original surface area heuristics. That blended probability is then used in the cost function defined by Equation 6).
Vinkler and Bittner are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) for ray tracing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of configuring BVHs and updating a cost function as taught by Vinkler with the biasing the cost function with the rays as taught by Bittner in order to speedup ray traversal and construction time by taking into the account of the actual distribution of rays in a scene (Bittner Abstract).
12. Regarding claim 2, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vinkler further teaches the apparatus wherein the processor is configured to: output the set of second BVH structures including the plurality of second nodes based on the configured set of second BVH structures (Section 3.1.1 mentions the BVH consists of nodes which contain triangles. The nodes can be considered the plurality of second nodes for a set of second BVH structures and the triangles can be considered the plurality of second primitives. The resulting presence of the BVH from using the updated cost function can be considered an output of the set of second BVH structures which has been configured).
13. Regarding claim 3, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 2. Vinkler further teaches the apparatus wherein, to output the set of second BVH structures, the processor is configured to: transmit the set of second BVH structures; or store, in a first memory or a first cache, the set of second BVH structures (Section 5 mentions running the method on a PC which has a memory. Table 1 description mentions recording the memory consumption of the BVHs based on different building methods. This inherently proves that the BVH when constructed is stored in memory or a cache which means the set of second BVH structures will be stored in memory or a first memory or cache. Applicant uses “or” requiring only one limitation be satisfied).
14. Regarding claim 4, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vinkler further teaches the apparatus wherein the processor is configured to: render, for the set of second frames based on the configured set of second BVH structures, the second geometry data based on the set of second BVH structures (Section 1, Paragraph 1-2 mentions hierarchical data structures encode spatial regions or objects and that BVH is one hierarchical data structure. The encoded spatial region can be considered geometry data; Section 4, Paragraph 2 mentions using the proposed method to create the data structures or BVHs for frames in an animation and rendering high quality images from the BVH. This teaches rendering the second geometry data based on a second BVH from a second set of frames from an animation).
15. Regarding claim 5, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vinkler further teaches the configured set of second BVH structures (Section 1, Paragraph 1-2 mentions hierarchical data structures encode spatial regions or objects and that BVH is one hierarchical data structure. The encoded spatial region can be considered geometry data; Section 4, Paragraph 2 mentions using the proposed method to create the data structures or BVHs for frames in an animation and rendering high quality images from the BVH. This teaches rendering the second geometry data based on a second BVH from a second set of frames from an animation).
However, Vinkler fails to teach the apparatus wherein the processor is configured to: process data associated with the set of second BVH structures including the plurality of second nodes, wherein the processed data is based on the configured set of second BVH structures.
Bittner teaches the apparatus wherein the processor is configured to: process data associated with the set of second BVH structures including the plurality of second nodes, wherein the processed data is based on the configured set of second BVH structures (Section 7.1 mentions obtaining measurements based on the configured tree from the updated cost function. The measurements include memory cost, number of intersections per ray, and more which can all be considered as processing data associated and based on the tree configuration; Section 7.5, Paragraph 2 and Table 5 mention calculating the time to render based on constructing the bounding volume tree based on the updated cost function method. The data is processed based on constructing bounding volume trees on scenes which can include a second set of frames and thus a second bounding volume tree).
Vinkler and Bittner are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) for ray tracing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of configuring BVHs and updating a cost function as taught by Vinkler with the processing of data to analyze the behavior of the biased cost function (Bittner Section 7.2, Paragraph 1).
16. Regarding claim 6, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vinkler further teaches the apparatus wherein the cost function is a surface area heuristic (SAH) cost function (Section 4.1, Paragraph 1 mentions optimizing and modifying an initial cost function that uses SAH, shown in Equation 4).
However, Vinkler fails to teach wherein, to update the cost function based on the number of rays that intersect each of the set of surfaces, the processor is configured to update the SAH cost function based on the number of rays that intersect each of the set of surfaces.
Bittner teaches wherein, to update the cost function based on the number of rays that intersect each of the set of surfaces, the processor is configured to update the SAH cost function based on the number of rays that intersect each of the set of surfaces (Section 5.3 mentions the updated cost function in Equation 6 is just an updated cost function from the original SAH cost function shown in Section 4, Equation 1. Thus, the cost function can be considered a SAH cost function; Section 5.3, Equation 6 shows a cost function which is updated based on the probability of rays intersecting either the left or right surface or fragment. The calculation of the probability comes from counting the number of rays intersecting each side, shown in Equation 3. Equation 4 incorporates that number of rays intersecting each side or surface into a blended probability with the original surface area heuristics. That blended probability is then used in the cost function defined by Equation 6).
Vinkler and Bittner are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) for ray tracing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of configuring BVHs and updating a cost function as taught by Vinkler with the biasing the SAH cost function with the rays as taught by Bittner in order to speedup ray traversal and construction time by taking into the account of the actual distribution of rays in a scene (Bittner Abstract).
17. Regarding claim 7, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Vinkler fails to teach the apparatus wherein, to update the cost function, the processor is configured to add a bias to the cost function associated with a certain surface in the set of surfaces.
Bittner teaches the apparatus wherein, to update the cost function, the processor is configured to add a bias to the cost function associated with a certain surface in the set of surfaces (Section 5.3, Equation 6 shows a cost function which is updated based on the probability of rays intersecting either the left or right surface or fragment. The calculation of the probability comes from counting the number of rays intersecting each side or surface, shown in Equation 3. Equation 4 incorporates that number of rays intersecting each side or surface into a blended probability with the original surface area heuristics. That blended probability is then used in the cost function defined by Equation 6).
Vinkler and Bittner are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) for ray tracing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of configuring BVHs and updating a cost function as taught by Vinkler with the biasing the SAH cost function with the rays as taught by Bittner in order to speedup ray traversal and construction time by taking into the account of the actual distribution of rays in a scene (Bittner Abstract).
18. Regarding claim 8, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Vinkler fails to teach the apparatus wherein, to update the cost function associated with a first BVH structure in the set of first BVH structures, the processor is configured to: identify, for the first BVH structure, a first surface area of a first surface in the set of surfaces and a first number of rays that intersect the first surface; and identify, for the first BVH structure, a second surface area of a second surface in the set of surfaces and a second number of rays that intersect the second surface.
Bittner teaches the apparatus wherein, to update the cost function associated with a first BVH structure in the set of first BVH structures, the processor is configured to: identify, for the first BVH structure, a first surface area of a first surface in the set of surfaces and a first number of rays that intersect the first surface, wherein the first number of rays is the first number of rays from the x-direction (Section 5.2, Equation 3 associates a right fragment, which is the right fragment of the bounding box, with the number of rays intersecting it. The right fragment can be considered the first surface and the number of rays ‘R_R’ intersecting this surface is identified; Section 4, Equation 2 identifies the right fragment’s surface area ‘S_R’; Section 6.2 also teaches sorting “all three sets of initial ray boundaries, one set of ray boundaries for each axis.” Figure 4 also shows the three axes being x, y, and z with a subset of the rays (N) belonging to each of the axes. This teaches an x, y, and z surface where the rays intersect and these surfaces associated with a set of boundary boxes from the boundary stack. The rays listed in the x-direction ray boundary also are recorded intersecting the right or left fragment. Thus, one can identify a first number of rays from the x-direction intersecting a first surface and is included in the number of rays intersecting the right fragment);
and identify, for the first BVH structure, a second surface area of a second surface in the set of surfaces and a second number of rays that intersect the second surface, wherein the second number of rays is the second number of rays from the y-direction (Section 5.2, Equation 3 teaches a left fragment, which is the left fragment of the bounding box, with the number of rays intersecting it. The left fragment can be considered the second surface and the number of rays ‘R_L’ intersecting this surface is identified; Section 4, Equation 2 identifies the left fragment’s surface area ‘S_L’; Section 6.2 also teaches sorting “all three sets of initial ray boundaries, one set of ray boundaries for each axis.” Figure 4 also shows the three axes being x, y, and z with a subset of the rays (N) belonging to each of the axes. This teaches an x, y, and z surface where the rays intersect and these surfaces associated with a set of boundary boxes from the boundary stack. The rays listed in the y-direction ray boundary also are recorded intersecting the right or left fragment. Thus, one can identify a first number of rays from the y-direction intersecting the second surface and is included in the number of rays intersecting the left fragment).
Vinkler and Bittner are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) for ray tracing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of configuring BVHs and updating a cost function as taught by Vinkler with the identifying of surface areas associated with subsets of intersecting rays as taught by Bittner in order to speedup ray traversal and construction time by taking into the account of the actual distribution of rays in a scene (Bittner Abstract).
19. Regarding claim 15, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vinkler further teaches the apparatus wherein, (Section 1, Paragraph 1-2 mentions hierarchical data structures encode spatial regions or objects and that BVH is one hierarchical data structure. The encoded spatial region can be considered geometry data; Section 5.5 mentions running the method on an animation that has 100 frames. This can be considered creating a BVH representative of the first geometry data that is dynamic);
However, Vinkler fails to teach detecting the number of rays that intersect each surface of the set of surfaces associated with each of the set of first BVH structures; and detect the number of rays based on the determination that the first geometry data comprises the dynamic geometry data.
Bittner teaches detecting the number of rays that intersect each of a set of surfaces associated with each of the set of first BVH structures (Section 3 mentions using ray distribution which includes a set of rays cast in the current frame. The set of rays is used to track all rays intersecting the leaf nodes; Section 5.2 mentions calculating a probability of a ray passing through one of the fragments of the bounding boxes. The calculation includes counting the number of rays intersecting the left and right fragments. The left and right fragments can be considered a set of surfaces associated with the BVHs in a first frame); and detect the number of rays based on the determination that the first geometry data comprises the dynamic geometry data (Section 3, Paragraphs 1-3 mention running the method of detecting and counting the rays on an animation with frames. The animation indicates dynamic geometry data. Paragraph 1 also specifically mentions detecting the number of rays in the current or previous frame; Section 5.1 mentions tracking the set of rays in an animation with different possibilities according to the frames in the animation).
Vinkler and Bittner are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) for ray tracing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of configuring BVHs and updating a cost function as taught by Vinkler with detecting of rays in dynamic geometries as taught by Bittner in order to speedup ray traversal and construction time by taking into the account of the actual distribution of rays in a scene (Bittner Abstract).
20. Method claims 17-24 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-8. Therefore, method claims 17-24 correspond to apparatus claims 1-8 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
21. Method claim 29 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 15. Therefore, method claim 29 corresponds to apparatus claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
22. Regarding independent claim 30, claim 30 is the computer-readable medium claim (Vinkler Section 5, Paragraph 1 mentions running the method with a PC which inherently contains a processor and memory. The memory can be considered the computer-readable medium storing executable code. Also mentions the Intel Core as the processor with 16 GB of RAM as a memory) of apparatus claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
23. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinkler et al. (“Visibility Driven BVH Build Up Algorithm for Ray Tracing” – cited in IDS), hereinafter referred to as Vinkler, in view of Bittner et al. (“RDH: Ray Distribution Heuristics for Construction of Spatial Data Structures”), hereinafter referred to as Bittner, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Meister et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0202178 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Vinkler in view of Bittner teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Vinkler and Bittner fail to teach the apparatus wherein the apparatus is a wireless communication device comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna.
Meister teaches the apparatus wherein the apparatus is a wireless communication device comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna (Paragraph 19 mentions the device consists of a network interface 135 which can receive and send network messages. This can be considered a transceiver).
Vinkler, Bittner, and Meister are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of optimizing bounding volume hierarchies for ray traversal. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of biasing a cost function taught by Vinkler in view of Bittner with the wireless communication device as taught by Meister in order to receive and send network messages (Meister Paragraph 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claim 9-14 and 25-28 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art in combination or alone fail to teach updating the cost function associated with the first BVH structure in the set of first BVH structures comprises: multiplying, to calculate a first product, the first number of rays by the first surface area; and multiplying, to calculate a second product, the second number of rays by the second surface area, wherein the updated cost function is based on the first product and the second product.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fenney et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0252718 A1) teaches checking intersections at the x, y, and z surfaces and updating a surface area heuristic with the ray distribution.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615