Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 25, 28-37 are now pending in the application. Claims 7-9, and 25 have been amended, claims 4 and 26-27 have been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 31-37 were preciously withdrawn. Previous objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of claims 4 and 26-27. Previous objection to claims 7-10 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 7-8.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Continuation of PCT/US2022/040814, filed 08/18/2022, that claims priority from provisional application US #63240111, filed 09/02/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11, and 25, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024), US 20200300442 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) a display configured to display light (i.e. optical apparatus 100, 200 and its illuminating module 11, 11’, e.g. 100, 200, as head-mounted display or projected display, see abstract, paragraphs [01,03-21, 28-37, 39-40, 44-49], see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a light source configured to emit illumination (light source 111, 111’ generating illumination beam, paragraphs [33-39], Figs. 1-4);
a spatial light modulator configured to generate the light using the illumination (as optical modulation module with light valve 131 receives illumination beam and reflects it addition image information, paragraphs [34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4);
optics that include a waveguide configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection (e.g. optics of 100 with 11, including light guiding module 15, paragraphs [31-39, 49], Figs. 1,4); and
a lens optically interposed between the light source and the spatial light modulator (lens with light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117, between 11 and 131, paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4) wherein the lens (115,117) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator (i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, and are configured uniformize the collimated beam, e.g. paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49], Figs. 1-4).
In regard to independent claim 25, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) a display configured to display light (i.e. optical apparatus 100, 200 and its illuminating module 11, 11’, e.g. 100, 200, as head-mounted display or projected display, see abstract, paragraphs [01,03-21, 28-37, 39-40, 44-49], see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a light source configured to emit illumination (light source 111, 111’ generating illumination beam, paragraphs [33-39], Figs. 1-4);
a spatial light modulator configured to generate the light using the illumination (as optical modulation module with light valve 131 receives illumination beam and reflects it addition image information, paragraphs [34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4);
optics that include a waveguide configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection (e.g. optics of 100 with 11, including light guiding module 15, paragraphs [31-39, 49], Figs. 1,4); and
a lens optically interposed between the light source and the spatial light modulator (lens with light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117, between 11 and 131, also as equivalent 115’, 117’, see paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4) wherein the lens (115,117, Figs. 2,3) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator (i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, and are configured uniformize the collimated beam, e.g. paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49], Figs. 1-4), wherein the lens (115,117, also as equivalent 115’, 117’, see paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4) comprises:
a first segment having a first optical axis (i.e. as 115,115’ lenslet and corresponding segment of 117,117’, having/on optical axis L1’, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3); and
a second segment on the first segment and having a second optical axis that is tilted with respect to the first optical axis (i.e. as corresponding segment of 117 having lens optical axis L2’ tilted at angle beta or spaced distance R and having different optical axis corresponding to A central optical axis tilted to L1, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the lens (115,117) comprises: a first segment having a first optical axis (i.e. as 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 having/on optical axis L2, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3); and
a second segment on the first segment and having a second optical axis that is non-parallel/tilted with respect to the first optical axis (i.e. as another 115 lenslet on first 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 spaced distance R and having different optical axis corresponding to A central optical axis tilted with respect to L1, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 3 and 29, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the second optical axis is tilted at a non-zero angle less than 30 degrees, and for claim 29 between 5 degrees and 35 degrees, with respect to the first optical axis (i.e. as depicted optical axis A is tiled by less than 30 degrees from L2 optical axis, as depicted in Fig. 2, paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], similarly in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the first segment is partially rotationally symmetric about the first optical axis (i.e. as 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 at least partially rotationally symmetric about optical axis L2, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3), and wherein the second segment is partially rotationally symmetric about the second optical axis (i.e. as another 115 lenslet and corresponding segment of 117 spaced distance R and at least partially rotationally symmetric about optical axis A central optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 6 and 30, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the spatial light modulator comprises a display panel selected from the group consisting of: a digital micromirror device (DMD) panel, a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) panel, a ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon (fLCOS) panel, and a transmissive liquid crystal panel (i.e. as display panel of light valve light modulator 131 as LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) reflective panel or digital micromirror device, paragraphs [34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 11, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) further comprising: an input coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple the light into the waveguide (i.e. given the image beam having image/image information passes modulation module enters the light guiding module, means that 15 has input coupler, e.g. including second lens 135, see abstract, paragraphs [04-07,28-31,35], as depicted in Figs. 1,4); and an output coupler on the waveguide and configured to couple the light out of the waveguide (i.e. given that the image beam travels in the light guiding module and leaves the light guiding module and is received by user's eyes means that means that 15 has output coupler see abstract, paragraphs [04-07,28-31,35], as depicted in Figs. 1,4).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20200300442 A1 in view of Melax et al. (hereafter Melax, of record) WO 2021055256 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the lens has curved surface (i.e. as lens, light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117, have curved surface, paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4), but is silent that it has a freeform curved surface.
However, Melax teaches in the same field of invention of optical system(s) including virtual reality and augmented reality headsets may include displays with optical elements that allow users to view the displays (see Figs. 1-8, abstract, paragraphs [02-06, 17-30,34-43, 49-57,81,89]) and further teaches that the lens has a freeform curved surface (i.e. as lens 34 including one or more lenses 60, that help direct image light towards waveguide, and that have form curved surface, and that provide desired magnification profile, allowing image light to impart different optical powers on image light, e.g. in different portions of the image to produce statically foveated image, paragraphs [49-55,81]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the lens of optical apparatus of Xiao to include lens with free form curved surface according to teachings of Melax in order to help direct image light towards waveguide, and provide desired magnification profile, e.g. allowing image light to impart different optical powers on image light, e.g. in different portions of the image to produce statically foveated image, (see Melax paragraphs [49-55,81]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20200300442 A1 in view of Yang (of record) US 20160112690 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the spatial light modulator modulates the illumination using image data that is modified across the field of view of the spatial light modulator (i.e. as optical modulation module with light valve 131 configured to receive the illuminating beam from illumination module 11 and modulate i.e. transform the illuminating beam to an image beam having an image, paragraphs [28,31, 34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4), but is silent to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics.
However, Yang teaches in close field of invention of display uniformity compensation method, an optical modulation apparatus, a signal processor, and a projection system (Figs. 1-11, abstract, paragraphs [02-11,28-37, 58-65,171-180]), and further teaches image data that is modified across the field of view of the spatial light modulator to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics (i.e. as using and driving the optical modulator unit and modulating original light according to the full region image data from the signal processor, and acquiring a compensation light and modulating the compensation light according to the compensation image data from the signal processor, thus providing and improving a uniformity degree of brightness of an image on a display unit, paragraphs [02-11,28-37, 171-180]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt optical modulation module with light valve of optical apparatus of Xiao to modulate the illumination of image data and modulate original and compensation light according to teachings of Yang in order to provide and improve a uniformity degree of brightness of an image on a display unit, (see Yang, paragraphs [02-11,28-37, 171-180]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (hereafter Xiao, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20200300442 A1 in view of Seo et al. (hereafter Seo, of record, see IDS dated 02/13/2024) US 20110115828 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) the light source (light source 111, 111’ generating illumination beam, paragraphs [33-39], Figs. 1-4) but is silent that it comprises a light emitting diode (LED) substrate having at least one or more light emitting regions that emit the illumination while at least partially mitigating the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics.
However, Seo teaches in related field of invention of a Display Device And Driving Method Thereof (see Figs. 1-4, abstract, paragraphs [9-19, 28-37, 40-54]) and further teaches light source has light emitting diode (LED) substrate having at least one or more light emitting regions that emit the illumination while at least partially mitigating the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics (i.e. light source 210 has substrate driving board with LEDs in blocks B i.e. region, where each LED is controlled independently with driving and controlling parts 220, 310, providing desired illumination intensity distribution and achieving illumination distribution substantially uniform, and or operated to illuminate different light intensities, based on the weight values and the representative values of the image blocks G, see paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the light source of Xiao to include substrate driving board with LEDs in blocks that each LED is controlled independently making illumination distribution substantially uniform according to teachings of Seo in order to provide desired illumination intensity distribution and achieving illumination distribution that is substantially uniform, and/or LEDs source that is operated to illuminate different light intensities, based on the weight values and the representative values of the image (see paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Regarding claim 9, the Xiao-Seo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and further teaches (see Figs. 1-4) that the one or more light emitting regions comprise (i.e. source 11,11’ as modified in combination with Sao) at least a first LED and a second LED and wherein the light source is configured to at least partially mitigate the brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by driving the first LED but not the second LED (i.e. as 214 has LEDs where each block has one or more LEDs e.g. white, RGB, that are individually controlled, driving one and another LED, see Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Regarding claim 10, the Xiao-Seo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and further teaches (see Figs. 1-4) comprising at least first and second drive lines coupled to the LED substrate (i.e. as modified source 11,11’ including substrate 214 with separate lines connected to each of LEDs in each block that are individually controlled, see connecting lines 360, Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]), wherein the first and second drive lines are each coupled to one or more light emitting regions on the LED substrate over a respective plurality of conductive vias (214 with separate lines connected to each of LEDs in each region(s) block B, and where LEDs are individually controlled, Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]), and wherein the first and second drive lines are independently driven to at least partially mitigate the brightness non- uniformity imparted on the light by the optics ( as due to combination, separate lines connected to LEDs in each region(s) block B, and individually controlled, providing desired illumination intensity distribution and achieving illumination distribution substantially uniform, Seo, paragraphs [47-52, 31-36]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 06/29/2029 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the cited prior art of Xiao does not disclose the claim 1 limitation (1) namely “wherein the lens is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator”, because element 115 is light uniformizer that does not direct light with any brightness non-uniformity to optical modulator 13 and lens 117 redirects uniformized light toward the modulator 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue (1), as noted in the rejections above, the cited prior art of Xiao teaches all limitations of claim 1, as Xiao teaches (see Figs. 1-4) a display configured to display light (i.e. optical apparatus 100, 200 and its illuminating module 11, 11’, e.g. 100, 200, as head-mounted display or projected display, see abstract, paragraphs [01,03-21, 28-37, 39-40, 44-49], see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
a light source configured to emit illumination (light source 111, 111’ generating illumination beam, paragraphs [33-39], Figs. 1-4);
a spatial light modulator configured to generate the light using the illumination (as optical modulation module with light valve 131 receives illumination beam and reflects it addition image information, paragraphs [34-36, 49], Figs. 1, 4);
optics that include a waveguide configured to propagate the light via total internal reflection (e.g. optics of 100 with 11, including light guiding module 15, paragraphs [31-39, 49], Figs. 1,4); and
a lens optically interposed between the light source and the spatial light modulator (lens with light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117, between 11 and 131, paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4) wherein the lens (115,117) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator, i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, and are configured uniformize the collimated beam, e.g. paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49], Figs. 1-4).
Specifically, Xiao teaches the lens that is optically interposed between the light source and the spatial light modulator, as lens with light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 which also acts as collimator, between 11 and 131, paragraphs [31-35, 39], Figs. 1-4, note also that Fig. 3 teaches equivalent example). Xiao, then expressly teaches that the lens (115,117) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator, i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, and are configured uniformize the collimated beam, e.g. paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49], Figs. 1-4.
The limitation in question here was treated broadly, as follows: the lens (115,117, Figs. 2,3) are configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics, because any optics of the display system may create brightness non-uniformity (see paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49]). Further the lens (115,117, Figs. 2,3) also mitigates brightness non-uniformity by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator 13, which is depicted in Figs. 1, 4 with Figs. 2,3 depicting the details of the light source 11, 11’.
Therefore the above claim language is treated by the recited structures and their mutual arrangement. Specifically, the recited functionality of the limitation phrase “directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator” was treated as illumination light that is directed by 115 and 117 toward modulator 13, but the non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator was read under broadest reasonable interpretation, as function of the spatial light modulator having or marking the non-uniform brightness across the field of view of the spatial light modulator. Therefore, Xiao, does teach that the lens (115,117) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator, i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, and are configured uniformize the collimated beam, e.g. paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49], Figs. 1-4. The limitation under issue (1) was treated as a whole limitation phrase and as part of the whole claim 1, not just as a partial phrase that “ the lens …[directs] the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator”, as asserted by the Applicant. Moreover, the above treatment of the entire limitation phrase under issue (1) is warranted because as recited “the lens is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity”, and is so configured “by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator”. However, directing illumination “…with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator” appears in contrast with the above, phrase that, “the lens is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “wherein the lens is configured to produce a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator”, or that “a non-uniform illumination pattern is produced by the collimating lens "to pre-compensate image light) 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). Moreover, the claim language also does not recite or imply that “a non-uniform illumination pattern is produced by the collimating lens 66 "to pre- compensate image light 38 for the non-uniformity subsequently introduced by optical system 20B. Specifically, claim language does not recite when and how is the non-uniformity subsequently introduced by optical system 20B, or where the optics including the waveguide is arranged with respect to other recited elements of the display. As a result of such broad treatment of limitation above, the cited prior art of Xiao teaches the limitation under issue (1) above.
In the alternative, assuming that claim language is red such that the lens is configured to produce a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator, the Xiao reference still teaches that the lens (115,117) is configured to mitigate a brightness non-uniformity imparted on the light by the optics by directing the illumination towards the spatial light modulator with a non-uniform brightness across a field of view of the spatial light modulator, i.e. as light uniformizer 115 lens array and first unit 117 direct non-uniform distribution of brightness illumination from 11 to 131, because light uniformizer 115 does uniformize the light from the light source 111,111’ that may have non-uniform distribution of brightness, however, there are no descriptions that such light is fully or completely uniformized, as light is passed and directed towards first lens unit 117, as well as beam combiner 133 before reaching the modulation module 13, and either of such optical elements may introduce non-uniform brightness at least to some extent. This is illustrated by arrangement of central optical axis L1, central axis A and offset distance R from lens optical axis L2, or with central optical axis L1, at an angle with lens optical axis L2 (paragraphs [33-34, 39, 49], Figs. 1-4), given that by the design of the light uniformizer 115 and the first lens unit 117, the light beam passing through the light uniformizer 115 and the first lens unit 117 is adjusted to have appropriate size (e.g. the size that fits following-described light valve 131 of the optical modulation module 13), so as to ensure that energy of the light beam is fully utilized by the optical modulation module 13. Hence, the cited prior art of Xiao teaches the limitation under issue (1) above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for amended claim 25 that the optical axis L2 is the only axis associated with a lens, while the other noted axes are not lens axes, is not persuasive. Specifically, Xiao teaches that the lens (115,117, also as equivalent 115’, 117’, see paragraphs [31-35, 39, Figs. 1-4) comprises: a first segment having a first optical axis (i.e. as 115,115’ lenslet and corresponding segment of 117,117’, having/on optical axis L1’, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3); and a second segment on the first segment and having a second optical axis that is tilted with respect to the first optical axis (i.e. as corresponding segment of 117 having lens optical axis L2’ tilted at angle beta or spaced distance R and having different optical axis corresponding to A central optical axis tilted to L1, e.g. paragraphs [32-34, 39, 49], Figs. 2-3). Specifically, both axis L2 and axis A are optical axes, are required by the claim language, and the because of the lens offset distance R, the above axes are tilted. Moreover, the cited equivalent module 11’, also disclose optical axes such as L1’ and L2’ which are tilted. Therefore Xiao teaches features noted for amended claim 25.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 16 of Remarks dated 06/29/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights