DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 07/10/2026 for 18410601. Claims 1-13 and 19-25 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the newly cited da Veiga being used in the new ground of rejection.
Claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-12, 19, and 21-25 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1 and 13.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "one or more virtual objects located within the gap within the XR environment" (claim 24) and "wherein the one or more virtual objects comprise background portions of the XR environment" (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites the newly amended limitation "one or more virtual objects located within the gap within the XR environment". While the specification as originally filed discloses "a gap 240 … located between the representation 238 and the representation 237" with an example of the gap "extending across a distance that is not occupied by a representation on the projection" [Specification, para 0032], it does not appear to describe in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention of any virtual objects located within the gap as recited in the newly amended limitation "one or more virtual objects located within the gap within the XR environment".
Claim 25 recites the newly amended limitation "wherein the one or more virtual objects comprise background portions of the XR environment". While the specification as originally filed discloses "the cursor 134 may be moved from a surface of the object 138 to a surface of the object 137 (without displaying cursor movement across a gap 140 extending a distance between non-contiguous objects 138 and 137)" with an example of "multiple user interfaces (e.g., corresponding to multiple, different applications) are presented sequentially and/or simultaneously within XR environment 105 using one or more flat background portions" [Specification, para 0032], it does not appear to describe in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention of background portions of the XR environment located within the gap within the XR environment as recited in the newly amended limitation "one or more virtual objects comprise background portions of the XR environment" given the one or more virtual objects located within the gap within the XR environment as recited in parent claim 24.
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.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the relative term "located within" which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "located within" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification recites "a gap 240 (extending across a distance that is not occupied by a representation on the projection) located between the representation 238 and the representation 237" [para 0032]. It appears unclear how Applicant is defining "one or more virtual objects located within the gap" given that a gap extends across a distance that is not occupied by a representation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is rejected as being indefinite for failing to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13 and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Veiga et al. (US 20160027216 A1) and Kapinos et al. (US 20240036794 A1).
As to claim 1, da Veiga discloses a method comprising:
at an electronic device having a processor and a display [Figs. 1, 14, para 0027, 0047, 0053, device includes controller and display]:
generating on the display, a first virtual object comprising a first surface and a second virtual object comprising a second surface presented in a view of an extended reality (XR) environment via the display, wherein the first virtual object is separated from the second virtual object by a gap located between the first virtual object and the second virtual object, the gap located within the view of the XR environment via the display [Figs. 3-4, para 0028-0029, 0039-0040, device renders virtual viewport (read: first virtual object) with boundary plane (read: first surface) and reconstructs surface (read: second surface) of identified monitor (read: second virtual object) incorporated into mixed reality environment visible to user field of view on HMD device, where monitor and viewport are separated by distance in device field of view as shown in Figure 3];
displaying a movement of a cursor across the first surface of the first virtual object in the view of the XR environment via the display [Figs. 3-4, para 0028-0031, 0037, render cursor movement in viewport in mixed reality environment visible to user field of view on HMD device];
determining that the movement of the cursor approaches or intersects … the first surface at a first position [para 0037-0038, 0046, determine cursor movement to position (read: first position) in viewport]; and
in accordance with determining that the movement of the cursor approaches or intersects … the first surface:
determining a second position on the second surface of the second virtual object in the XR environment based on a path of the cursor with respect to a[] point … [para 0028, 0037-0039, 0046, determine initial position (read: second position) on surface of identified monitor incorporated into mixed reality environment based on last position (read: intersection point) of cursor movement (read: path)]; and
moving the cursor from the first position to the second position by discontinuing display of the cursor at the first position and initiating display of the cursor at the second position … [para 0037-0038, 0044-0046, transition cursor movement from last position in viewport to initial position on monitor by discontinuing rendering cursor at last position in viewport and rendering cursor at initial position on monitor].
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose determining that the movement of the cursor approaches or intersects a boundary of the first surface at a first position; and a path of the cursor with respect to an intersection point of a boundary of the second surface; and initiating display of the cursor at the second position without displaying the cursor within the gap.
Kapinos discloses:
determining that the movement of the cursor approaches or intersects a boundary of the first surface at a first position [Fig. 5, para 0064-0065, 0075, device identifies cursor movement abuts bottom edge (read: boundary) of display (read: first surface) at location (read: first position)]; and
determining a second position on the second surface of the second virtual object in the XR environment based on a path of the cursor with respect to an intersection point of a boundary of the second surface [Fig. 5, para 0054, 0059, 0065, 0076, determine location of disparate display surface in 3D space based on cursor motion vector (read: path) intersecting edge (read: boundary) of disparate display surface when cursor abuts bottom edge of display]; and
initiating display of the cursor at the second position without displaying the cursor within the gap [Fig. 5, para 0065, 0076, continue cursor movement by removing presentation (read: discontinue display) of cursor from location at display and presenting (read: initiate display) cursor at display location on disparate display determined from cursor motion vector, note displaying cursor motion from display to disparate display does not display cursor between displays].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cursor movement, cursor path, and display of the cursor at a second position as disclosed by da Veiga with cursor movement approaching or intersecting a boundary of a first surface at a first location, a cursor path with respect to an intersection point of a boundary of a second surface, and initiating display of the cursor at a second position without displaying the cursor within a gap as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate natural user interactions [Kapinos, para 0021].
As to claim 7, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cursor is an indicator showing positions of a user interaction within the XR environment responsive to user input [Fig. 4, para 0028, 0031-0032, 0037, render cursor at positions in mixed reality environment based on user interaction with user interfaces].
As to claim 8, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object are flat virtual user-interface objects [Fig. 3, para 0025, 0029-0030, 0039-0040, reconstruct 2D (read: flat) surface of identified monitor incorporated into mixed reality environment].
As to claim 9, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object are 3D virtual user-interface objects [Fig. 3, para 0029-0030, render 3D viewport in mixed reality environment].
As to claim 10, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface and second surface are separate by the gap comprising a [] distance from one another within the XR environment [Figs. 3-4, para 0028-0029, 0039-0040, device renders virtual viewport with boundary plane and reconstructs surface incorporated into mixed reality environment, where monitor and viewport are separated by non-contiguous distance in device field of view as shown in Figure 3].
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein "a [] distance" is "a non-contiguous distance".
Kapinos discloses wherein the first surface and second surface are separate by the gap comprising a non-contiguous distance from one another within the XR environment [para 0054, 0059-0060, identify displays with respective display surfaces, where displays are non-adjacent and separated by non-contiguous depth (read: distance) in 3D space].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap comprising a distance as disclosed by da Veiga with a non-contiguous distance as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate natural user interactions [Kapinos, para 0021].
As to claim 11, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface and second surface are flat surfaces that are separated by the gap comprising a[] distance from one another in the XR environment and oriented in different directions [Figs. 3-4, para 0028-0029, 0039-0040, device renders virtual viewport with boundary plane and reconstructs surface incorporated into mixed reality environment at different locations (read: orientations), where monitor and viewport are separated by non-contiguous distance in device field of view as shown in Figure 3].
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein "a [] distance" is "a non-contiguous distance".
Kapinos discloses wherein the first surface and second surface are flat surfaces that are separated by the gap comprising a non-contiguous distance from one another in the XR environment and oriented in different directions [para 0054, 0059-0060, identify displays with respective display surfaces with x-y display borders, where displays are non-adjacent and separated by non-contiguous depth (read: distance) in 3D space, note different depths fall under broadest reasonable interpretation of orientation including an arrangement].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap comprising a distance as disclosed by da Veiga with the non-contiguous distance as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate natural user interactions [Kapinos, para 0021].
As to claim 12, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising initially displaying the cursor at an initial position on the first surface in response to a gaze or head pose of a user [para 0037, 0039, 0042-0043, render cursor at initial position in viewport based on user head position and gaze direction interacting with viewport].
As to claim 13, da Veiga and Kapinos, combined at least for the reasons above, da Veiga discloses an electronic device comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform operations [Fig. 20, para 0064-0066, system includes memory and processors executing instructions stored in memory] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 19, da Veiga and Kapinos, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the electronic device of claim 13 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 20, da Veiga and Kapinos, combined at least for the reasons above, da Veiga discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions executable by one or more processors to perform operations comprising: at an electronic device having the one or more processors and a display [Figs. 1, 14, 20, para 0027, 0047, 0053, 0064-0066, system includes memory storing instructions, processors executing stored instructions, and display]: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 21, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual object is a first virtual user interface and the second virtual object is a second virtual user interface [Figs. 3-4, para 0028-0030, 0039-0040, user interacts with virtual viewport including user controls and identified monitor operating user application incorporated into mixed reality environment].
As to claim 22, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first virtual user interface comprises at least one user interface element and the second virtual user interface comprises at least one user interface element [Figs. 3-4, para 0028-0030, 0039-0040, virtual viewport includes user control and identified monitor displays user application].
As to claim 23, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual object is located with respect to a first plane and the second virtual object is located with respect to a second plane differing from the first plane [Fig. 3, para 0025, 0029-0030, 0039-0040, render viewport in 3D and reconstruct surface in 2D of identified monitor incorporated into mixed reality environment].
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Veiga and Kapinos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20110107270 A1).
As to claim 2, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the path is … corresponding to the cursor movement on … the first surface and the second surface [para 0028, 0037-0039, 0046, determine cursor movement between cursor position in viewport and last position on monitor surface].
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein the path is a line corresponding to the cursor movement on an orthographic projection of the first surface and the second surface.
Kapinos discloses wherein the path is a line corresponding to the cursor movement on a[] projection of the first surface and the second surface [Figs. 4-5, para 0060, 0063-0065, project cursor motion as line in projection plane including display surface and virtual projection of display surface].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the path corresponding to cursor movement as disclosed by da Veiga with wherein the path is a line corresponding to cursor movement on a projection of a first surface and a second surface as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate logical screen positioning [Kapinos, para 0059-0060].
However, da Veiga and Kapinos do not specifically disclose wherein "a[] projection" is "an orthographic projection".
Wang discloses an orthographic projection [para 0073, 0194, 0235, display image in plane using orthographic projection].
da Veiga, Kapinos, and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection as disclosed by da Veiga and Kapinos with the orthographic projection as disclosed by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga and Kapinos as described above to apply known methods of presenting information on display devices [Wang, para 0082, 0194].
As to claim 3, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 2.
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein the path is a line based on extending a line segment corresponding to the cursor movement on the orthographic projection.
Kapinos discloses wherein the path is a line based on extending a line segment corresponding to the cursor movement on the [] projection [Fig. 5, para 0063, 0065, project motion vector in direction (read: extending line segment) of cursor motion line in projection plane].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the path as disclosed by da Veiga with wherein the path is a line based on extending a line segment corresponding to cursor movement on a projection as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate logical screen positioning [Kapinos, para 0059-0060].
However, da Veiga and Kapinos do not specifically disclose wherein "the [] projection" is "the orthographic projection".
Wang discloses the orthographic projection [para 0073, 0194, 0235, display image in plane using orthographic projection].
da Veiga, Kapinos, and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection as disclosed by da Veiga and Kapinos with the orthographic projection as disclosed by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga and Kapinos as described above to apply known methods of presenting information on display devices [Wang, para 0082, 0194].
As to claim 4, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a direction … is modified within a bounded area with respect to a position of the second surface of the second virtual object [para 0034, 0036-0038, determine cursor movement (read: direction) to reentry position on reconstructed surface of identified monitor including edges (read: bounded area)].
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein a direction of the line segment is modified within a bounded area.
Kapinos discloses wherein a direction of the line segment is modified within a bounded area with respect to a position of the second surface of the second virtual object [para 0065, change direction of cursor motion vector in surface (read: bounded area) of disparate display after presenting cursor at edge portion (read: position) of disparate display surface (read: bounded area)].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the direction within a bounded area as disclosed by da Veiga with a direction of a line segment modified within a bounded area as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate logical screen positioning [Kapinos, para 0059-0060].
As to claim 5, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 2.
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein the orthographic projection is onto a plane that is at a fixed position defined based on an orientation enabling the plane to remain independent of a user viewpoint.
Kapinos discloses wherein the [] projection is onto a plane that is at a fixed position defined based on an orientation enabling the plane to remain independent of a user viewpoint [para 0060-0061, establish projection plane at depth (read: fixed position) using front surface of reference display (read: orientation), where the element of a reference display is separate from the element of a user viewpoint and is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent including being separate].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the path corresponding to cursor movement as disclosed by da Veiga with a projection onto a plane at a fixed position based on an orientation as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate logical screen positioning [Kapinos, para 0059-0060].
However, da Veiga and Kapinos do not specifically disclose wherein "the [] projection" is "the orthographic projection".
Wang discloses the orthographic projection [para 0073, 0194, 0235, display image in plane using orthographic projection].
da Veiga, Kapinos, and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection as disclosed by da Veiga and Kapinos with the orthographic projection as disclosed by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga and Kapinos as described above to apply known methods of presenting information on display devices [Wang, para 0082, 0194].
As to claim 6, da Veiga discloses the method of claim 2.
However, da Veiga does not specifically disclose wherein the orthographic projection is onto a plane defined based on an orientation of the first virtual object or the second virtual object.
Kapinos discloses wherein the [] projection is onto a plane defined based on an orientation of the first virtual object or the second virtual object [para 0060-0061, establish projection plane including display using coordinates and depth (read: orientation, note broadest reasonable interpretation of orientation includes any direction) of reference display].
da Veiga and Kapinos are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the path corresponding to cursor movement as disclosed by da Veiga with a projection onto a plane at a fixed position based on an orientation as disclosed by Kapinos with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga as described above to facilitate logical screen positioning [Kapinos, para 0059-0060].
However, da Veiga and Kapinos do not specifically disclose wherein "the [] projection" is "the orthographic projection".
Wang discloses the orthographic projection [para 0073, 0194, 0235, display image in plane using orthographic projection].
da Veiga, Kapinos, and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection as disclosed by da Veiga and Kapinos with the orthographic projection as disclosed by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify da Veiga and Kapinos as described above to apply known methods of presenting information on display devices [Wang, para 0082, 0194].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Neves Creto et al. (US 11520457 B1) generally discloses moving cursors by discontinuing cursor display at a first position and initiating cursor display at a second display without displaying the cursor within a gap between virtual display objects.
Johnson et al. (US 20180046352 A1) generally discloses non-contiguous cursor display between virtual object surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights