DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raskar et al. US 2004/0184011 hereinafter referred to as Raskar.
In regards to claim 1, Raskar teaches:
“A method for automatically detecting a projector configuration, comprising: searching for a plurality of projectors in a network domain”
Raskar paragraph [0053] and Figures 2A-B teach As shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the projector 100 can be used alone, or in a self-configurable ad-hoc networked cluster 200 of projectors communicating with each other via a network 210, such as wireless Ethernet, RF, or infrared. When configured as the cluster 200, the projectors 100 display what is perceived as a single seamless composite image 201, shown stippled in FIG. 2B. Raskar Figure 6 and paragraph [0101] teaches a method 600 for forming the cluster 200 of projectors. The method responds to receiving 610 a `calibrate` message. The calibrate message can be broadcast by a projector U.sub.k that wants to join the cluster 200. Alternatively, the calibrate message can be broadcast by any projector already in the cluster when its orientation has changed according to the sensors 190. The Examiner interprets the sending of the message as searching for projectors.
“wherein each of the projectors is correspondingly equipped with an imaging apparatus; driving the projectors to project, and driving the imaging apparatuses to capture images”
Raskar paragraph [0043] teaches a camera sub-system 160 for acquiring input images. Raskar teaches in paragraph [0103] the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200. Raskar teaches in paragraph [0104] If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector.
“grouping the projectors based on one or more projected ranges comprised in an imaging range of the imaging apparatus of each of the projectors”
Raskar teaches in paragraph [0104] If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The Examiner interprets that the projectors are grouped if they are considered a cluster.
“and determining a configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in a same group for overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors grouped in the same group.
Raskar teaches in paragraph [0104] If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The Examiner interprets that performing an alignment is equivalent to determining a configuration relationship. Raskar teaches in paragraph [0107] we perform image registration of overlapping images. The relationship between the images is expressed as a homography. The mapping between two arbitrary perspective views of an opaque planar surface in 3D can be expressed using a planar projective transfer, expressed as a 3.times.3 matrix defined up to a scale.
In regards to claim 14, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 14 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
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.
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) 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskar in view of Oike et al. US 10,681,319 hereinafter referred to as Oike.
In regards to claim 2, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the imaging range of the imaging apparatus corresponding to each of the projectors [acquires images], the network domain comprises N projectors and N imaging apparatuses”
Raskar paragraph [0102] teaches This puts the cameras of all the m projectors U.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m in attention mode and all of the receiving projectors respond 620 by broadcasting a `ready` message.
“and step of driving the projectors to project, and driving the imaging apparatuses to capture images comprises: sequentially driving an i-th projector among the N projectors to project a recognition image, where i=1, 2, ..., N”
Raskar paragraph [0103] teaches At this point, the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200. Any number of communication protocol techniques can be used to synchronize the sequential projection of the structured pattern.
“and driving the N imaging apparatuses to simultaneously capture images in a case where the i-th projector projects the recognition image”
Raskar paragraph [0104] teaches If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The alignment includes determining pair-wise geometric relationships between the projectors in the cluster, as described below. The Examiner interprets that Raskar does not disclose the cameras operating sequentially and those of ordinary skill would not assume this to be the case. In addition, Raskar teaches in Figure 7 and paragraph [0110] The projected image is concurrently acquired by the camera 160 in each projector in the cluster. The Examiner interprets that while Figure 7 discloses a different embodiment it would appear the two embodiments could be used together as multiple steps are the same. Therefore, given the teaching of Figures 6 and Figure 7 those of ordinary skill would understand that the image could be taken simultaneously and this would not provide any unexpected results as the results are known from the method of Figure 7. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
Raskar does not explicitly teach:
“is greater than a projected range of a corresponding one of the projectors”
Oike Figure 2 discloses the image capture areas VA-VD are larger than the projection areas 2A-2D. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar in view of Oike to have included the features of “is greater than a projected range of a corresponding one of the projectors” because an advantage of some aspects of the invention is that differences among images projected by a plurality of projectors can be corrected without use of a camera capable of capturing the entire images projected by the projectors (Oike column 1 lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 4, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the imaging range of the imaging apparatus corresponding to each of the projectors [is used to acquire images], the network domain comprises N projectors and N imaging apparatuses, and step of driving the projectors to project”
Raskar paragraph [0102] teaches This puts the cameras of all the m projectors U.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m in attention mode and all of the receiving projectors respond 620 by broadcasting a `ready` message. Raskar paragraph [0043] teaches a camera sub-system 160 for acquiring input images. Raskar teaches in paragraph [0103] the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200.
“and driving the imaging apparatuses to capture images comprises: driving a j-th projector among the projectors to project a recognition image, and driving a j-th imaging apparatus corresponding to the j-th projector among the imaging apparatuses to capture an image to obtain a first captured image, where j=1, 2, ..., N; and driving N-1 other projectors except the j-th projector among the projectors to project the recognition image, and driving the j-th imaging apparatus to capture an image to obtain a second captured image”
These limitations are similar to those of claim 2 however, sequential driving is not required. Raskar paragraph [0103] teaches At this point, the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200. Any number of communication protocol techniques can be used to synchronize the sequential projection of the structured pattern. Raskar teaches in paragraph [0104] If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector.
Raskar does not explicitly teach:
“is greater than a projected range of a corresponding one of the projectors”
Oike Figure 2 discloses the image capture areas VA-VD are larger than the projection areas 2A-2D. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar in view of Oike to have included the features of “is greater than a projected range of a corresponding one of the projectors” because an advantage of some aspects of the invention is that differences among images projected by a plurality of projectors can be corrected without use of a camera capable of capturing the entire images projected by the projectors (Oike column 1 lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 6, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the imaging range of the imaging apparatus corresponding to each of the projectors [acquires images], the network domain comprises N projectors and N imaging apparatuses, and step of driving the projectors to project”
Raskar paragraph [0102] teaches This puts the cameras of all the m projectors U.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m in attention mode and all of the receiving projectors respond 620 by broadcasting a `ready` message. Raskar paragraph [0043] teaches a camera sub-system 160 for acquiring input images. Raskar teaches in paragraph [0103] the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200.
“and driving the imaging apparatuses to capture images comprises: driving the N projectors to respectively project a plurality of recognition images; and driving the N imaging apparatuses to respectively capture images in a case where the N projectors all project a corresponding one of the recognition images to obtain N captured images”
Raskar paragraph [0104] teaches If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The alignment includes determining pair-wise geometric relationships between the projectors in the cluster, as described below.
Raskar does not explicitly teach:
“is greater than a projected range of a corresponding one of the projectors”
Oike Figure 2 discloses the image capture areas VA-VD are larger than the projection areas 2A-2D. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar in view of Oike to have included the features of “is greater than a projected range of a corresponding one of the projectors” because an advantage of some aspects of the invention is that differences among images projected by a plurality of projectors can be corrected without use of a camera capable of capturing the entire images projected by the projectors (Oike column 1 lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 9, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein step of determining the configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group for the overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors grouped in the same group comprises: sequentially driving an m-th projector among M projectors comprised in the same group to project a reference image, where m=1, 2, ..., M”
Raskar paragraph [0103] teaches At this point, the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200. Any number of communication protocol techniques can be used to synchronize the sequential projection of the structured pattern.
“driving M imaging apparatuses corresponding to the M projectors to simultaneously capture images in a case where the m-th projector projects the reference image; and determining the configuration relationship between the m-th projector and M-1 other projectors based on imaging results of the M imaging apparatuses”
Raskar paragraph [0104] teaches If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The alignment includes determining pair-wise geometric relationships between the projectors in the cluster, as described below. The Examiner interprets that Raskar does not disclose the cameras operating sequentially and those of ordinary skill would not assume this to be the case. In addition, Raskar teaches in Figure 7 and paragraph [0110] The projected image is concurrently acquired by the camera 160 in each projector in the cluster. The Examiner interprets that while Figure 7 discloses a different embodiment it would appear the two embodiments could be used together as multiple steps are the same. Therefore, given the teaching of Figures 6 and Figure 7 those of ordinary skill would understand that the image could be taken simultaneously and this would not provide any unexpected results as the results are known from the method of Figure 7. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 10, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein step of determining the configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group for the overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors grouped in the same group comprises: driving M projectors comprised in the same group to respectively project a plurality of reference images having … patterns”
Raskar paragraph [0103] teaches At this point, the projectors, project sequentially 630 a structured pattern, which is visible to one or more of the m cameras C.sub.i, i=1, . . . , m, embedded in the projectors of the cluster 200. Any number of communication protocol techniques can be used to synchronize the sequential projection of the structured pattern.
“driving M imaging apparatuses corresponding to the M projectors to respectively capture images in a case where the M projectors all project a corresponding one of the reference images to obtain M captured images; and determining the configuration relationship among each of the M projectors and other projectors based on the M captured images”
Raskar paragraph [0104] teaches If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The alignment includes determining pair-wise geometric relationships between the projectors in the cluster, as described below. In addition, Raskar teaches in Figure 7 and paragraph [0110] The projected image is concurrently acquired by the camera 160 in each projector in the cluster. The Examiner interprets that while Figure 7 discloses a different embodiment it would appear the two embodiments could be used together as multiple steps are the same.
Raskar/Post do not explicitly teach:
“different patterns”
Oike Figure 2 teaches a different pattern. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar in view of Oike to have included the features of “different patterns” because an advantage of some aspects of the invention is that differences among images projected by a plurality of projectors can be corrected without use of a camera capable of capturing the entire images projected by the projectors (Oike column 1 lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 11, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the configuration relationship comprises one of a horizontal splicing configuration, a vertical splicing configuration, a stacking configuration, and a matrix splicing configuration”
Oike Figure 2 teaches horizontal splicing. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar in view of Oike to have included the features of “wherein the configuration relationship comprises one of a horizontal splicing configuration, a vertical splicing configuration, a stacking configuration, and a matrix splicing configuration” because an advantage of some aspects of the invention is that differences among images projected by a plurality of projectors can be corrected without use of a camera capable of capturing the entire images projected by the projectors (Oike column 1 lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 12, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the projectors respectively project a recognition image having a same or different pattern, or the projectors respectively project a recognition image having identification information related to the corresponding projector”
Oike Figure 2 teaches a different pattern. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar in view of Oike to have included the features of “wherein the projectors respectively project a recognition image having a same or different pattern, or the projectors respectively project a recognition image having identification information related to the corresponding projector” because an advantage of some aspects of the invention is that differences among images projected by a plurality of projectors can be corrected without use of a camera capable of capturing the entire images projected by the projectors (Oike column 1 lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 15, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 15 contains similar limitations as in claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
In regards to claim 16, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 16 contains similar limitations as in claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as in claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 9.
In regards to claim 20, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 20 contains similar limitations as in claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 10.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskar in view of Oike in view of Post et al. US 2024/0089418 hereinafter referred to as Post.
In regards to claim 3, Raskar/Oike teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein step of grouping the projectors based on the projected ranges comprised in the imaging range of the imaging apparatus of each of the projectors comprises: determining whether the respective imaging ranges of the N imaging apparatuses comprise an i-th projected range of the i-th projector based on N captured images captured by the N imaging apparatuses in the case where the i-th projector projects the recognition image”
Raskar paragraph [0104] teaches If any one camera from the existing cluster acquires 640 the projected pattern, then the entire cluster performs 650 global alignment to include projector U.sub.k, or any other projector. The alignment includes determining pair-wise geometric relationships between the projectors in the cluster, as described below. The Examiner interprets that this would include all projectors including the i-th projector.
“and identifying at least one projected range covered by each of N imaging ranges of the N imaging apparatuses, wherein the i-th projector is correspondingly equipped with an i-th imaging apparatus; in response to an i-th imaging range of the i-th imaging apparatus comprising the i-th projected range and at least one other projected range, setting each projector corresponding to an individual other projected range overlapping with the i-th projected range to have correlation with the i-th projector,
Raskar paragraph [0107] teaches As shown in FIG. 7, we perform image registration of overlapping images. The relationship between the images is expressed as a homography.
Raskar does not explicitly teach:
“and setting each projector corresponding to an individual other projected range not overlapping with the i-th projected range to have no correlation with the i-th projector; and grouping the projectors based on correlation among the N projectors; and grouping the projectors based on correlation among the N projectors.”
However, Raskar teaches determining if projectors overlap, so necessarily the projectors that are not identified as overlapping would be understood to be non-overlapping. Regardless, Post teaches generating groups of non-overlapping images. Post teaches in paragraph [0031] and Figure 8 the 4×6 array of projectors (1,1; 1,2; 1,3 . . . 4,4) shown in FIG. 8, can be reduced to four non-overlapping gather groups (Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4), because projector 1,1 overlaps only with projectors 1,2 and 2,1 while projector 1,2 only overlaps with projectors 1,3 and 2,2, etc. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raksar/Oike in view of Post to have included the features of “and setting each projector corresponding to an individual other projected range not overlapping with the i-th projected range to have no correlation with the i-th projector; and grouping the projectors based on correlation among the N projectors” because Current structured light systems are not capable of quickly calibrating very large multi-projector systems (Post [0002]).
In regards to claim 5, Raskar/Oike teach all the limitations of claim 4 and claim 5 contains similar limitations as in claim 3. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 3.
In regards to claim 7, Raskar/Oike teach all the limitations of claim 6 and claim 7 contains similar limitations as in claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, Raskar teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claims 6-7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claims 6-7.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskar in view of Oike in view of Post in view of Kasuga et al. US 2017/0295349 hereinafter referred to as Kasuga.
In regards to claim 8, Raskar/Oike/Post teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
“wherein the recognition images respectively have patterns related to corresponding projectors, step of determining the configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group for the overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors grouped in the same group comprises: identifying one or more of the patterns comprised in the overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group based on the N captured images to obtain an identification result; and determining the configuration relationship among the projectors in the same group based on the identification result”
Kasuga paragraph [0045] teaches The projectors PJ1, PJ2, and PJ3 undergo projection adjustment that causes the projection images overlap with each other. In one example shown in FIG. 1, the projection adjustment is so performed that a right end portion of an area PA1 of the projection image projected by the projector PJ1 overlaps with a left end portion of an area PA2 of the projection image projected by the projector PJ2. The projection adjustment is further so performed that a right end portion of the area PA2 of the projection image projected by the projector PJ2 overlaps with a left end portion of an area PA3 of the projection image projected by the projector PJ3. Kasuga paragraph [0088] and Figure 6 teaches the leftmost projector PJ1 is the main projector. The main projector projects no identification image DC. The control section 10 provided in the projector PJ2 projects an identification image DC1 in a lower portion of the overlapping projection area OA1 or in a lower left portion of the projection image area PA2. The control section 10 provided in the projector PJ3 projects an identification image DC2 in a lower portion of the overlapping projection area OA2 or in a lower left portion of the projection image area PA3. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar/Oike/Post in view of Kasuga to have included the features of “wherein the recognition images respectively have patterns related to corresponding projectors, step of determining the configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group for the overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors grouped in the same group comprises: identifying one or more of the patterns comprised in the overlapping areas between the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group based on the N captured images to obtain an identification result; and determining the configuration relationship among the projectors in the same group based on the identification result” to provide a projection system, a projector, and a projector controlling method for readily determining the positional relationship among images projected from a plurality of projectors (Kasuga [0005]).
In regards to claim 18, Raskar/Oike/Post teach all the limitations of claim 17 and claim 18 contains similar limitations as in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 8.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskar in view of Oike in view of Kasuga.
In regards to claim 13, Raskar/Oike/Post teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein a recognition image respectively projected by the projectors has image area information corresponding to an image area of the recognition image, and step of determining the configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group comprises: determining the configuration relationship according to the image area information”
Kasuga paragraph [0088] and Figure 6 teaches the leftmost projector PJ1 is the main projector. The main projector projects no identification image DC. The control section 10 provided in the projector PJ2 projects an identification image DC1 in a lower portion of the overlapping projection area OA1 or in a lower left portion of the projection image area PA2. The control section 10 provided in the projector PJ3 projects an identification image DC2 in a lower portion of the overlapping projection area OA2 or in a lower left portion of the projection image area PA3. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raskar/Oike/Post in view of Kasuga to have included the features of “wherein a recognition image respectively projected by the projectors has image area information corresponding to an image area of the recognition image, and step of determining the configuration relationship of the projected ranges of the projectors in the same group comprises: determining the configuration relationship according to the image area information” to provide a projection system, a projector, and a projector controlling method for readily determining the positional relationship among images projected from a plurality of projectors (Kasuga [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422