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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Japanese Application JP2023-014904 filed February 2nd, 2023).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on December 29th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2 – 3, 7 – 12, 16, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species (Species II – V), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29th, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 31st, 2024; May 29th, 2024; April 18th, 2025; and September 18th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “2a” in Figure 8 [Specification Paragraph 46].
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 3, the approximation symbol should read as “
≈
” as intended in the Specification Paragraph 32.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence instead of a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plurality of light sources […] configured to …” in claims 1 and 15.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processor configured to …” in claims 1 and 15.
The Examiner affords the claimed “processor” status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the sole interest to expedite prosecution, the claimed “light sources” are being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 4 – 6, 13 – 15 , and 17 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is treated as an independent claim, but refers to claim 1, however recites all of claim 1 into the claim instead of just the short-hand reference to incorporate claim 1. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are Indefinite regarding the elements and duplicity of elements to consider in setting the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim limitation: “an image pickup unit configured to …” in claims 1, 15, and 17;
has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “unit” is defined in Specification Paragraph 18, the definition given is so broad the term lacks clear correspondence with the structures being Functionally claimed and would be required when Functionally Analyzed and thus the “unit” claimed is not afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 17, the claim is a method claim, but functionally claims apparatus elements (or merely recites functions as some elements may not connote sufficient structure) in the preamble thus due to the Indefinite Category of invention claim 17 is considered Indefinite and is Indefinite regarding analysis of the claim including if the method should be functionally analyzed. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, 13, and 14, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, 13 – 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakoshima (US PG PUB 2023/0181034 A1 referred to as “Hakoshima” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s May 29th, 2024 IDS], and further in view of Matsuda, et al. (JP2004-167152 A referred to as “Masuda” throughout).
Regarding claim 17, see claims 1 and 15 which are the apparatus claims performing steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 1, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
a plurality of light sources including a first light source and a second light source, and configured to illuminate an eyeball of a user who observes an observation apparatus, from positions different from each other [Hakoshima Figures 1, 3 – 4 and 6 (see at least reference characters 20, 21, 21A, and 21B) as well as Paragraphs 30 – 31 (light sources separated / in different position), 36 – 37, 42, and 49 – 51 (light sources to image eyes separated by a distance)];
an image pickup unit configured to capture an image of the eyeball [Hakoshima Figures 1 – 4 and 9 – 10 (see at least reference characters 20 and 22 (camera / imaging unit) and “EB” (eyeball being imaged)) as well as Paragraphs 31 – 33, 35 – 42 (imaging eyes / eyeball (EB) with a camera / imaging unit)]; and
a processor configured to [Hakoshima Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference characters 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 31, and 35) as well as Paragraphs 32 – 33 (processor part of computer to process images) and 35 – 37 (detection processor)]
calculate an eyeball distance from the image pickup unit to the eyeball based on a distance, in the image captured by the image pickup unit, between a first reflected image of the first light source reflected by the eyeball and a second reflected image of the second light source reflected by the eyeball [Hakoshima Figures 1 – 7 and 9 – 10 (see at least reference characters 33, 34, and 80 (distance computation), 120A, and 120B (two reflection images of cornea / eyeball)) as well as Paragraphs 31 and 37 – 41 (object distance computations in which distance from eyeball to camera is computed), 43 – 46 (object distance embodiment with line of sight consideration), 49 – 51 and 54 – 59 (image data used and equations for object distance computations)],
wherein the processor is configured to calculate the eyeball distance [See previous two limitations for citations]
using correction information based on positional information on the first reflected image and the second reflected image on the image [Hakoshima Figures 4 – 10 (including Figure 8 suggesting changes / adapting distance computations) as well as Paragraphs 42 – 45 (position of camera and images / cornea / eyeball images) and 49 – 59 (distance computation with the location of the images / parameters derived from images to incorporate Masuda’s teachings); Masuda Figures 6 – 11 (chart / pre-stored matrix of correction values) as well as Paragraphs 13 – 20 (automatically corrections to center of the eyeball and thus correcting positions / generation of correction information)].
The motivation to combine Masuda with Hakoshima is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of line of sight position / detection / imaging systems [Masuda Paragraphs 1 – 3] in order to improve relationships in expressing line of sight and simplifying computations / relationship in imaging faces / eyes [Masuda Paragraphs 8 – 9 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
wherein the correction information is based on at least one of a center-of-gravity coordinate of a plurality of reflected images of the plurality of light sources reflected by the eyeball in the image [Hakoshima Figures 11 – 14 as well as Paragraphs 71 – 75 (gravity centers of images used / coordinates of gravity centers computed in images combinable with Masuda); Masuda Figures 3 – 8 as well as Paragraphs 10 – 15 (center of gravity is a parameter in the correction equations based on reflected light)], a distance between the plurality of reflected images in the image [Hakoshima Figures 6 – 7 and 11 – 14 (5 images of reflected light shown / used for distance computations) as well as Paragraphs 36 – 40 (multiple images used for distance / correction computation), 65 – 72 (calibrating / correcting the position based on multiple images / reflected images captured such as IM3, IM4, and IM5)], a previously calculated positional relationship between a position of the eyeball and the image pickup unit [Hakoshima Paragraphs 37 – 39 and 47 – 50 (storing previously computed object distances / center distances), and 61 – 67 (storing distance computations for calibration purposes / adjustments later for calibrating imager and processing of distances)], and a radius of curvature of the eyeball [Hakoshima Paragraphs 46 – 50 (computing the radius for position considerations) and 69 – 74 (curvature radius of eyeball); Masuda Figures 1 – 2 and 9 (see the mark-up and radius of eyes drawn) as well as Paragraphs 10 – 11 and 14 – 17 (see at least the rr and r parameters at least as the radius of the curvature of the eyeball)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda.
Regarding claim 5, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
wherein the correction information is based on a center-of-gravity coordinate of a plurality of reflected images of the plurality of light sources reflected by the eyeball in the image, and a distance between the plurality of reflected images in the image [Hakoshima Figures 6 – 7 and 11 – 14 (5 images of reflected light shown / used for distance computations) as well as Paragraphs 36 – 40 (multiple images used for distance / correction computation), 65 – 72 (calibrating / correcting the position based on multiple images / reflected images captured such as IM3, IM4, and IM5), and 71 – 75 (gravity centers of images used / coordinates of gravity centers computed in images combinable with Masuda); Masuda Figures 3 – 8 as well as Paragraphs 10 – 15 (center of gravity is a parameter in the correction equations based on reflected light and distances computed)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda.
Regarding claim 6, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
wherein the correction information is based on a previously calculated positional relationship between a position of the eyeball and the image pickup unit, and a radius of curvature of the eyeball [Hakoshima Paragraphs 37 – 39 and 46 – 50 (storing previously computed object distances / center distances and computing the radius for position considerations), 61 – 67 (storing distance computations for calibration purposes / adjustments later for calibrating imager and processing of distances), and 69 – 74 (curvature radius of eyeball); Masuda Figures 1 – 2 and 9 (see the mark-up and radius of eyes drawn) as well as Paragraphs 10 – 11 and 14 – 17 (see at least the rr and r parameters at least as the radius of the curvature of the eyeball)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda.
Regarding claim 13, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
wherein the processor is configured to [See claim 1 for citations] correct the distance between the first reflected image of the first light source reflected by the eyeball and the second reflected image of the second light source reflected by the eyeball, using the correction information [Hakoshima Figures 4 – 10 (including Figure 8 suggesting changes / adapting distance computations) as well as Paragraphs 42 – 45 (position of camera and images / cornea / eyeball images) and 49 – 59 (distance computation with the location of the images / parameters derived from images to incorporate Masuda’s teachings); Masuda Figures 6 – 11 (chart / pre-stored matrix of correction values) as well as Paragraphs 13 – 20 (automatically corrections to center of the eyeball and thus correcting positions / generation of correction information)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda.
Regarding claim 14, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
a memory storing the correction information [Hakoshima Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference character 36 (memory / storage)) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (store computations / functions to compute distances), 45 – 49 and 60 – 62 (store calibration / correction information as suggested and computed in Masuda Figures 3, 6 – 7, and 10 – 11 as well as Paragraphs 14 – 21 (various corrections to distance to store in the memory of Hakoshima))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda.
Regarding 15, Hakoshima teaches an eye imaging system with corrections for various considerations and displays the images captured. Masuda teaches additional correction considerations including for the radius / curvature of the eye to combine / modify with the teachings of Hakoshima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hakoshima with the corrections and eye curvature / radius considerations of Masuda. The combination teaches
an image display element [Hakoshima Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference character 10, 11, and 40) as well as Paragraphs 27 – 28 (see at least LCD and OLED embodiments to display eye images acquired), 33 – 34 and 46 – 48 (display acquired images of eyes and position / information about eyes imaged)]; and
a line-of-sight detecting apparatus according to claim 1 [See claim 1 for limitations / citations in the interest of brevity],
which is used to observe an image displayed on the image display element [Hakoshima Figures 1 – 2 (see at least reference character 10, 11, and 40) as well as Paragraphs 27 – 28 (see at least LCD and OLED embodiments to display eye images acquired), 33 – 34 and 46 – 48 (display acquired images of eyes and position / information about eyes imaged)],
wherein the line-of-sight detecting apparatus comprising: [See claim 1 for limitations / citations in the interest of brevity]
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Hakoshima and Masuda. The Examiner notes since the whole apparatus of claim 1 is included in the apparatus of claim 15 and thus similar motivation exists.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference which may raise ODP Issues based on amendment made to the pending claims: Yoshida (US Patent #9,538,913 B2 referred to as “Yoshida” throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487