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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on May 1, 2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 8, 16, and 20 have been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 7, 15, and 19 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawing, specification, and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 26, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 13 that the color combiner of Gu is not consistent with the light-homogenizing color-mixing device in amended claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the color combiner of Gu is not consistent with the light-homogenizing color-mixing device in amended claim 1. However, the rejection of claim 1 does not rely on the color combiner of Gu. Rather the illumination device taught by Hung uses a light-homogenizing color-mixing device (Figure 16 light uniforming element 357, [0086]). Gu is used to modify the illumination device taught by Hung by using the multiple light emitting elements of Gu. Gu further teaches using three light-emitting elements to provide red, green, and blue light [0010]. Therefore Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14 that Hung does not disclose the shaping of angle distribution of illumination light matches a shape and proportion of the display chip, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hung fails to explicitly teach shaping of angle distribution of illumination light in respective colors by the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is required to meet a condition that a shape of angle distribution after shaping matches a shape and proportion of the display chip. However, Hung does teach that light uniforming element 357 may be a fly-eye lens array ([0084]) which are well-known to shape the angular distribution of light. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the illumination assembly taught by Hung and Gu to have the shape of the shaped angular distribution match a shape and proportion of the display chip in order to improve the efficiency of the light (e.g. maximize the amount light incident on the display chip and minimize the amount of light that does not strike the display chip). Therefore Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintain the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 regarding “an angle distribution of incident light received by the light homogenizing color-mixing device is greater than a range of angular distribution of the multi-color illumination light” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0335628 – hereinafter referred to as “Hung”) in view of Gu (Chinese Patent Publication CN 103576432 A) and in further view of Oiwa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0242960 – hereinafter referred to as “Oiwa”).
Regarding claim 1, Hung teaches an illumination assembly (Figure 16 illumination system 350B, [0085]), configured to provide a mixed-color illumination light for a display chip (Figure 16 display device 330B, [0086]), the illuminating assembly comprising:
an illumination light source (Figure 16 light source 351, [0086]) comprising a substrate ([0084] light source 351 can be an LED which has a substrate), and a first light-emitting element ([0084] light source 351 can be an LED),
a light-homogenizing color-mixing device (Figure 16 light uniforming element 357, [0086]), wherein the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is arranged on a light exit side of the illumination light source and configured to shape and homogenize multi-color illumination lights emitted by the first light-emitting element to form the mixed-color illumination light ([0086] light uniforming element 357 is on exit side of light source 351); and
a relay assembly (Figure 16 prism module 359B, [0086]), wherein the relay assembly is arranged on a light exit side of the light-homogenizing color-mixing device and configured to transmit the mixed-color illumination light from the light-homogenizing color-mixing device to the display chip to modulate the mixed-color illumination light into image light (Figure 16, [0086] prism module 359B transmits light from light uniforming element 357 to display device 330B).
the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is a microlens array ([0084] light uniforming element 357 is a lens array) or a binary optical device.
Hung fails to explicitly teach the illumination light source comprises a second light-emitting element, and a third light-emitting element, wherein the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting clement are arranged on the substrate and the light homogenizing device shapes and homogenizes light emitted from the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting elements.
However, Gu is related to Hung with respect to a display illumination assembly (Figure 1). Gu teaches an illumination light source comprises a second light-emitting element, and a third light-emitting element (Figure 3 LED chips 13, 14, and 15 comprise three light emitting elements, [0008]), wherein the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting clement are arranged on the substrate (Figure 3 LEDs 13-15 are on substrate 10) and the light homogenizing device shapes and homogenizes light emitted from the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting elements ([0008] light-uniforming 21,22 and color combiner 42 shape and homogenize light emitted form LEDs 13-15). Gu further teaches using three light-emitting elements to provide red, green, and blue light [0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung by using three light emitting elements as taught by Gu such that the light homogenizing device taught by Hung shapes and homogenizes light emitted from the three light-emitting elements in order to provide red, green, and blue light (Gu [0010]).
Hung and Gu fail to explicitly teach shaping of angle distribution of illumination light in respective colors by the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is required to meet a condition that a shape of angle distribution after shaping matches a shape and proportion of the display chip. However, Hung does teach that light uniforming element 357 may be a fly-eye lens array ([0084]) which are well-known to shape the angular distribution of light. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the illumination assembly taught by Hung and Gu to have the shape of the shaped angular distribution match a shape and proportion of the display chip in order to improve the efficiency of the light (e.g. maximize the amount light incident on the display chip and minimize the amount of light that does not strike the display chip).
Hung and Gu fail to explicitly teach an angle distribution range of incident light received by the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is greater than a range of angular distribution of the multi-color light. However, Oiwa is related to Hung with respect illumination devices (Figure 1) and teaches an angle distribution range of incident light received by the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is greater than a range of angular distribution of the multi-color light ([0102] angle of maximum value of angle of emission light is θ max and an allowable incidence angle of the fly-eye lens is θth and θ max ≤ θth). Oiwa further teaches having the angle distribution range of incident light received by the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is greater than a range of angular distribution of the multi-color light in order to enhance light use efficiency ([0105]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by Hung and Gu such that an angle distribution range of incident light received by the light-homogenizing color-mixing device is greater than a range of angular distribution of the multi-color light as taught by Oiwa in order to enhance light use efficiency (Oiwa [0105]).
Regarding claim 3, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hung fails to teach a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices, wherein the plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly. However, Gu teaches light-homogenizing color-mixing device comprises a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42), wherein the plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 are stacking the light path between the light device and focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices improves the efficiency of the light device ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices as taught by Gu in order to improve the efficiency of the lighting device (Gu [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 3. Hung fails to teach the light-homogenizing color-mixing devices comprises three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices, wherein the three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly. However, Gu teaches light-homogenizing color-mixing device comprises three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 comprise three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices), wherein the three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly (Figure 1 each light-uniforming component 21,22 is stacked in the light path with color combiner 42 between the lighting device and focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices improves the efficiency of the light device ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by Hung by having three light-homogenizing color-mixing devices as taught by Gu in order to improve the efficiency of the lighting device (Gu [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Hung ,Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 3. Hung fails to teach light-homogenizing color-mixing devices comprises two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices, wherein the two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly. However, Gu teaches a light-homogenizing color-mixing device comprising two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 comprise two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices), wherein the two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly (Figure 1 each light-uniforming component 21,22 is stacked in the light path with color combiner 42 between the lighting device and focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices improves the efficiency of the light device ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having two light-homogenizing color-mixing devices as taught by Gu in order to improve the efficiency of the lighting device (Gu [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hung fails to teach the illumination light source is one of an RGBW four-in-one light source, an RGGB four-in-one light source, and an RGB three-in-one light source. However, Gu teaches one of an RGBW four-in-one light source, an RGGB four-in-one light source, and an RGB three-in-one light source (Figure 3 LED chip 13 is a green LED, LED chip 14 is a blue LED, and LED chip 15 is a red LED all on a single substrate 10, [0010]). Gu further teaches using a RGB three-in-one- light source to prove white light from the combined light ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by using an RGB three-in-one light source as taught by Gu in order to provide white light from the combined light (Gu [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hung fails to teach wherein an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light. However, Gu teaches an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light ([0026] light emission is compressed to 20° after emission from the lighting device and passing through light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 to the focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using mixed-color illumination to provide white light from the combined light ([0007]) and such an arrangement would allow the relay assembly to receive all the light from the light homogenizing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light as taught by Gu in order to provide white light from the combined light (Gu [0007]) and such an arrangement would allow the relay assembly to receive all the light from the light homogenizing device.
Regarding claim 9, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hung further teaches the relay assembly comprises a beam splitter (BS) prism (Figure 16 prism 352 is a beam splitter prism, [0086]), a first relay lens (Figure 16 lower lens in prism module 359B), and a collimating lens (Figure 16 collimating lens 353, [0086]). Hung fails to teach the BS prism is arranged in a light path between the first relay lens and the light-homogenizing color-mixing device. However, placement of the BS prism, relay lens, and light-homogenizing color-mixing device would be a matter of design choice and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung by having the BS prism arranged in a light path between the first relay lens and the light-homogenizing color-mixing device as doing so would be a rearrangement of parts a matter of design choice one skilled in the art would be capable of making.
Regarding claim 10, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 9. Hung further teaches the collimating lens is arranged in a light path between the illumination light source and the light-homogenizing color-mixing device (Figure 16 collimating lens 353 is between light source 351 and light uniforming element 357).
Regarding claim 13, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach display light machine (Hung Figure 16 head mounted device (HMD) 300B), comprising:
the illumination assembly of claim 1 (combination of Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach claim 1, see claim 1 above);
an imaging lens (Hung lens module 340, [0086]) and
a display chip (Hung display device 330B), wherein the display chip is arranged in a light path between the illumination assembly and the imaging lens and configured to modulate the mixed-color illumination light from the illumination assembly into image light which is modulated for imaging via the imaging lens (Figure 16 display device 330 is between the illumination system 350B and lens module 340).
Regarding claim 14, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Hung fails to teach a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices, wherein the plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly. However, Gu teaches light-homogenizing color-mixing device comprises a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42), wherein the plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 are stacking the light path between the light device and focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices improves the efficiency of the light device ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices as taught by Gu in order to improve the efficiency of the lighting device (Gu [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Hung fails to teach wherein an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light. However, Gu teaches an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light ([0026] light emission is compressed to 20° after emission from the lighting device and passing through light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 to the focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using mixed-color illumination to provide white light from the combined light ([0007]) and such an arrangement would allow the relay assembly to receive all the light from the light homogenizing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light as taught by Gu in order to provide white light from the combined light (Gu [0007]) and such an arrangement would allow the relay assembly to receive all the light from the light homogenizing device.
Regarding claim 17, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach a near-eye display device (Hung Figure 1), comprising: a device body (HMD 100); and the display light machine of claim 13 (combination of Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach claim 13, see claim 13 above), wherein the display light machine is mounted on the device body (Hung Figure 1 display device 130 is mounted on HMD 100).
Regarding claim 18, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Hung fails to teach a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices, wherein the plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly. However, Gu teaches light-homogenizing color-mixing device comprises a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42), wherein the plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices are stacked in a light path between the illumination light source and the relay assembly (Figure 1 light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 are stacking the light path between the light device and focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices improves the efficiency of the light device ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having a plurality of light-homogenizing color-mixing devices as taught by Gu in order to improve the efficiency of the lighting device (Gu [0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Hung, Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Hung fails to teach wherein an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light. However, Gu teaches an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light ([0026] light emission is compressed to 20° after emission from the lighting device and passing through light-uniforming components 21,22 and color combiner 42 to the focusing component 5). Gu further teaches using mixed-color illumination to provide white light from the combined light ([0007]) and such an arrangement would allow the relay assembly to receive all the light from the light homogenizing device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by having an angle distribution range of incident light received by the relay assembly is less than an angle distribution range of maximum overlapping region of lights with different colors in the mixed-color illumination light as taught by Gu in order to provide white light from the combined light (Gu [0007]) and such an arrangement would allow the relay assembly to receive all the light from the light homogenizing device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0335628) in view of Gu (Chinese Patent Publication CN 103576432 A) and Oiwa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0242960) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ronen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0359034).
Regarding claim 11, Hung ,Gu, and Oiwa teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hung further teaches the relay assembly comprises a polarizer ([0086] the illumination beam is converted to a single polarity and therefore passes through a polarizer), a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) prism (Figure 16 prism 352 is a PBS, [0086]), a first relay lens (Figure 16 lower lens in prism module 359B), wherein the polarizer is arranged in a light path between the illumination light source and the PBS prism ([0086] since illumination beam is polarized before PBS prism the polarizer is between light source 351 and prism 352).
Hung, Gu, and Oiwa fail to teach a quarter-wave plate, and a curved mirror; the first relay lens and the curved mirror are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the PBS prism, and the quarter-wave plate is arranged in a light path between the PBS prism and the curved mirror. However Ronen teaches an illumination device (Figure 8) with a quarter-wave plate ([0062] reflective lens 310 is associated with a quarter wave plate) and a curved mirror (Figure 8 reflective lens 310 is a curved mirror). Ronen further teaches a relay lens (Figure 8 lens 313) and the curved mirror (reflective lens 310) are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the PBS prism (Figure 8 lens 313 and reflective lens 310 are on opposite sides of PBS 35) and the quarter-wave plate is arranged in a light path between the PBS prism and the curved mirror ([0062] quarter wave plate is associated with reflecting lens 310 and there must be in the light path between reflecting lens 310 and PBS 35). Ronen further teaches such an arrangement is well-known in art and used in conventional reflective spatial light modulator (SLM) projectors ([0062). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination assembly taught by Hung, Gu, and Oiwa by adding a quarter-wave plate, and a curved mirror; the first relay lens and the curved mirror are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the PBS prism, and the quarter-wave plate is arranged in a light path between the PBS prism and the curved mirror as taught by Ronen since such an arrangement is well-known in the art and commonly used with conventional reflective SLM projectors (Ronen [0062])
Regarding claim 12, Hung, Gu, Oiwa and Ronen teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Hung further teaches the relay assembly comprises a second relay lens (Figure 16 upper lens in prism module 359B) and a collimating lens (Figure 16 collimating lens 353, [0086]), and the collimating lens is arranged in a light path between the illumination light source and the light-homogenizing color-mixing device (Figure 16 collimating lens 353 is between light source 351 and light uniforming element 357).
Hung, Gu, Oiwa and Ronen fail to teach a turning prism, wherein the turning prism is arranged in a light path between the illumination light source and the polarizer, the second relay lens is arranged in a light path between the turning prism and the polarizer. However, a turning prism is well-known in the art and commonly used to shorten a lens assembly with affecting the path length of the lens assembly. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination device taught by the combination of Hung, Gu, Oiwa and Ronen by adding a turning prism, wherein the turning prism is arranged in a light path between the illumination light source and the polarizer, the second relay lens is arranged in a light path between the turning prism and the polarizer since turning prisms are well-known in the art and reduce the size of illumination assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xaio et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0300442) teaches an illumination assembly similar to the instant invention using a display device, light homogenizing assembly, and relay assembly.
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 ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights