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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding interpretation under section 112(f), Applicant argues: “The claims do not use the terms "means" or "step," and Applicant did not intend these limitations to be construed as means-plus-function limitations. Under MPEP § 2181 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the absence of the word "means" creates a presumption that§ 112(f) does not apply.”
Examiner notes that Applicant is well aware that: The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
In this case, Applicant uses generic terms that invoke section 112(f) as noted in the Claim Construction section below.
Applicant argues: “That standard is not met here. The cited claim terms are not black-box placeholders such as an unspecified "module," "mechanism," or "device" divorced from the optical context. Instead, the claims recite physical optical components and materials”
Examiner notes that components and materials are no less generic to a manufacture than mechanism or device is to an apparatus.
Applicant argues: “The term "transparent material" expressly recites material, which is one of the statutory categories of support referenced in § 112(f) itself”
Examiner notes that the word “material” is not a magic word that makes a claim definite. Section 112(f) requires that the presumption “is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.” "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The word “material” is generic in that it does not name a definite material.
Applicant argues: “Thus, the claims recite an optical material body having defined surfaces and defined spatial relationships.”
Examiner notes that all materials have surfaces, so this fails to make a material into a definite material. The spatial relationships limit the applications of the claim but not the structure of the material itself.
Applicant argues: “The fact that the transparent material may encompass a class of known transparent optical materials, such as glass, plastic, or another optically transmissive medium, does not convert the term into a nonce term.”
Examiner notes that the fact that the term “material” may encompass other undefined materials makes the term generic.
Applicant argues: “The recited "holographic surface" also connotes structure. Claim 1 does not merely recite a generic "surface for directing light." It recites a holographic surface coincident with the front surface of the transparent material and patterned to refract light received through a side surface of the …”
Examiner again notes that defining a surface by its function and position does not limit the structure or material of the surface to a known or a definite structure or material.
Applicant argues: “The recited "infrared light source" likewise names a known class of physical light-emitting structures. Claim 1 further recites where that source is positioned - proximate a back surface of the transparent material - and the optical path in which it emits infrared light through the transparent material and through the LCD toward the see-through combiner. A light source is conventional optical hardware, such as a laser, LED, or other emitter.”
Examiner notes that a structure claimed described a function that can be implemented by other means is not a definite structure. For support, Applicant seems to rely on the Specification, which is exactly the purpose of section 112(f).
Applicant argues: “The recited "see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface" is also a recognized structural optical component in head-up display and augmented-reality optics.”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to cite evidence of a recognized structural limitation. A combiner indicates a combining function, not a defined structure or material.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action's own claim mapping reinforces this conclusion. The Office Action identified specific physical structures allegedly corresponding to the disputed terms, including lenses, glass or plastic, wave plates or waveguides, partially reflective mirrors, and polarized reflective optics.”
Examiner notes that: Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions. Williamson at 1351. Applicant may not cite Prior Art as support for claimed terminology.
Applicant argues: “Independent claim 1 has been amended in a targeted manner to more expressly recite the infrared eye-imaging optical path.”
Examiner notes that the newly amended claim language is addressed for reasons for rejection cited below.
Applicant argues: “The distinction is also apparent from a comparison of representative figures. Applicant's Fig. 26 shows the infrared eye-imaging path through the backlight/LCD/combiner architecture. Samaniego Fig. 16, by contrast, shows an integrated backlight/light-control device …”
Examiner notes that the present claims are not narrowly limited to Fig. 26 in the Specification, and Samaniego is not limited to Fig. 16, with other portions of the references cited in the reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Thus, even if Pryor were combined with Samaniego, the combination would at most suggest a camera behind an LCD for machine-vision sensing of objects or datum features through an LCD. It would not teach or suggest the complete infrared eye-imaging optical path now recited in claim 1.”
Examiner notes that the structural elements of Claim 1 do not appear to be narrowly tailored to imaging eyes for solving a problem in a particular HMD. Examiner suggests claiming additional details that clarify how the camera arrangement is particularly tailored for improving imaging of the eyes through such substantive optical media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first holographic surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending Claim 3 to read “The reality head worn display of claim 2” .
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 1-11 recite “a transparent material having a front surface … holographic surface coincident the front surface and patterned to refract light … an infrared light source … a see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface … ” a generic term [material, surface, combiner] modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. A transparent material is supported as lenses in general as described in Specification, Paragraph 3 or glass and plastic lenses or polarization plates as described in Specification, Fig.27 and Paragraph 198. A holographic surface is supported as a wave plate as described in Specification, Fig. 27 or a waveguide as described in Paragraph 5. A see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface is supported as a partially reflective mirror as in original Claim 5 and Specification, Paragraph 195, or a polarized reflective optic Paragraph 195.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See, MPEP 2115.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250020919 to Samaniego (“Samaniego”) in view of US 20050276448 to Pryor (“Pryor”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An augmented reality head worn display, comprising: (“any of the display systems, optical structures, and/or light control structures may be used in a wearable device such as a head-mounted display” Samaniego, Paragraph 142.)
a liquid crystal digital display (LCD); (“Display panel 104 may be any suitable display device, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel” Samaniego, Paragraph 39.)
a backlight positioned to provide light through a back surface of the LCD, comprising at least: (“FIG. 16 shows an illustrative configuration 1600 of an integrated backlight/light control device 1602 ("integrated backlight 1602") that produces backlight for a display panel 1604.” Samaniego, Paragraph 115.)
a transparent material having a front surface coincident the back surface of the LCD; (There are several examples of such a material, such as “A Fresnel lens 1622 is positioned between integrated backlight 1602 and display panel 1604 to direct image light 1612 to a desired location 1624. … a diffuser (not shown) is positioned between second beam expander 1616 and Fresnel lens 1622 … A gap may be located between the diffuser and display panel 1604” Samaniego, Paragraph 115.)
holographic surface coincident the front surface and patterned to refract light received through a side surface of the transparent material and direct it toward the back surface of the LCD; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the holographic surface can be a waveguide beam expander and light received through a side surface can be a laser. See the original Claim 2. Prior art teaches an example of this: “As shown in FIG. 16, integrated backlight 1602 includes a first beam expander 1614 and a second beam expander 1616. First beam expander 1614 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a first dimension and second beam expander 1616 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a second dimension, thereby forming collimated source beam 1610. First beam expander 1614 and second beam expander 1616 may be implemented by any suitable beam expanding component(s) (e.g., lenses, optics, waveguides, etc.),” where waveguides exemplify a holographic surface. Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
an infrared light source positioned proximate a back surface of the transparent material (“Display system 100 may include … an infrared light source, an infrared photodetector,” Samaniego, Paragraph 34. “Backlight 102 includes a light source, such as a light-emitting diode (LED) light source or any other suitable source of light.” Samaniego, Paragraph 36.)
to emit infrared light through the transparent material and through the LCD toward the see-through combiner; (“Backlight 102 includes a light source, such as a light-emitting diode (LED) light source or any other suitable source of light. … source light 112 may be guided to display panel 104 by one or more optical components (e.g., lenses, light guides, reflectors, mirrors, etc.)” which exemplify transparent materials. See Samaniego, Paragraph 36. Further, “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an illustrative configuration of a display system 100 having a folded optical path. As shown, display system 100 includes a backlight 102 (shown only in FIG. 1), a display panel 104, a first reflector 106, a second reflector 108, and an eyepiece 110,” with each of the last three components embodying a light control / combiner functionality. See Samaniego, Paragraph 34 and similarly in Pryor Paragraph 101 and Fig. 11. Thus, an infrared backlight source can emit light from the backlight through the transparent material and LCD panel and toward the combiner optics.)
an infrared camera positioned proximate the back surface of the transparent material to receive infrared eye-image light (“display system 100 includes a backlight 102 … may include … an infrared light source, an infrared photodetector,” Samaniego, Paragraph 34. As noted above, the backlight components are proximate the back surface of a transparent material. See similarly in Pryor, Paragraphs 23, 140 and statement of motivation below.)
“[infrared eye-image light] reflected from an eye of a user along an infrared eye-imaging optical path extending from the eye to the see-through combiner and from the see-through combiner back through the LCD and through at least a portion of the backlight; and (First, note that this element claims infrared eye-image light as a product-by-process which is not recited as steps performed by the claim and thus do not limit the claim (i.e. to steps of ensuring that a user is in the right position for this exact image to be taken). Since the infrared photodetectors in the prior art are included with the infrared backlight, they are capable of performing the intended use.
Cumulatively, Samaniego does not explicitly teach that the camera is configured to detect light reflected through the claimed display components, such as by a camera behind the LCD.
Pryor teaches this feature in the context of LDC displays: “maximum light returned to the camera behind the LCD by reflection back through the LCD from the datum. This is true either for use with the main display visible light source, or auxiliary sources for the camera, usually in the near IR.” Pryor, Paragraph 23. Here, a reflection of the light from the image subject through the LCD also indicates that the reflection passes through all the display optics including transparent elements making up the combiner and the backlight assembly. See Samaniego Figs. 1, 2, 8.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Samaniego to detect light reflected back through the LCD, as taught in Pryor, in order “to operate the LCD display, in conjunction with the use of machine vision.” Pryor, Paragraph 23. “The above arrangement will work in transreflective LCD systems too” Pryor, Paragraph 130.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
a see-through combiner with a partially reflective surface (“Display system 100 may include additional or alternative components as may suit a particular implementation, such as one or more optical components ( e.g., lenses, filters, mirrors, light guides, diffractive elements, attenuators, etc.),” Samaniego, Paragraph 34. For example, mirrors can be “transflective mirrors 1618 (e.g., partially reflective and partially transmissive mirrors).” Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
to receive the infrared light from the infrared light source after the infrared light passes through the LCD, and to reflect the infrared light toward the eye of the user and to reflect the infrared eye-image light from the eye of the user back through the LCD and through at least a portion of the backlight to the infrared camera. (As noted above the optical order of the arrangement can be as in “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an illustrative configuration of a display system 100 having a folded optical path. As shown, display system 100 includes a backlight 102 (shown only in FIG. 1), a display panel 104, a first reflector 106, a second reflector 108, and an eyepiece 110,” with each of the last three components embodying a light control / combiner functionality. Also note that a backlight can comprise “one or more optical components (e.g., lenses, light guides, reflectors, mirrors, etc.)” through which light would pass until it reaches detectors or non-transmissive components. See Samaniego, Paragraph 34 and similarly in Pryor Paragraph 101 and Fig. 11. Thus, light reflected from an object in front of the display would pass through all of these optical components in reverse order.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the backlight comprises
a laser light source to produce a column of light, (“Light source 1606 may be or may include any suitable device configured to produce collimated source beam 1608, such as a laser” Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
a first holographic surface to produce a line of light from the column of light, and a second holographic surface to produce a two-dimensional surface of light from the line of light.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, a holographic surface can be a waveguide. See Specification, Paragraph 5. Prior art teaches this feature: “Collimated source beam 1608 may then be expanded in any suitable way. As shown in FIG. 16, integrated backlight 1602 includes a first beam expander 1614 and a second beam expander 1616. First beam expander 1614 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a first dimension and second beam expander 1616 expands collimated source beam 1608 in a second dimension, thereby forming collimated source beam 1610. First beam expander 1614 and second beam expander 1616 may be implemented by any suitable beam expanding component(s) (e.g., lenses, optics, waveguides, etc.),” where waveguides exemplify a holographic surface. Samaniego, Paragraph 116.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the infrared camera receives the infrared light through at least the first holographic surface.” (As noted in Claims 1 and 2, the infrared light can pass through the display system and then get reflected from the environment back toward the display system and thus would pass through at least one holographic surface of the display system and through the LCD. See Samaniego, Fig. 1. This light can then be captured by a camera behind the LCD as in Pryor, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the see-through combiner comprises a partially reflective surface through which a user views an external environment proximate the user, the partially reflective surface being configured to reflect light from the LCD to generate an image that overlays the external environment from a perspective of the user.” (For example, “First reflector 106 and second reflector 108 may each be any suitable device configured to reflect first image light 114-1 to thereby fold the optical path of first image light 114-1. … (e.g., partially reflective and partially transmissive mirrors).” Samaniego, Paragraphs 40, 37, 16, Fig. 1. As noted in Fig. 1, the partially reflective part of the mirror is configured to reflect the display image toward the viewer and a partially transmissive part of the mirror would pass the light from the environment toward the viewer. See a similar embodiment in Pryor, Paragraph 129 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a partial mirror.” (“(e.g., partially reflective and partially transmissive mirrors).” Samaniego, Paragraph 16. See a similar embodiment in Pryor, Paragraph 129 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a holographic surface configured to reflect at least a portion of light emitted from the LCD and reflect at least a portion of light from the infrared light source.” (“a holographic diffuser … For instance, diffuser 1414 may be located at an observation point of an eye of a viewer [coincident to the reflector of Fig. 1], in front of or behind the observation point of the eye of the viewer, or at any other suitable location (e.g., on the viewer-side of eyepiece 110). Holographic element 1410 may also be used in other applications and systems that do not fold an optical path. In such applications, diffuser 1414 may be located at a position corresponding to the location of an eyepiece relative to the display panel 1412, an observation point of an eye of a viewer [coincident to the reflector of Fig. 1], or any other suitable location.” Samaniego, Paragraph 105. Thus, a holographic surface can be located at the same location, and be a part of, the reflective surface.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a holographic surface.” (See rejection in Claim 6.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The reality head worn display of claim 4, wherein the partially reflective surface comprises a holographic surface configured to reflect at least a portion of light emitted from the LCD and reflect at least a portion of light from the infrared light source.” (See rejection reasons in Claims 1 and 6. As discussed in Claim 1, the infrared backlight would be emitted from the LCD along with any other backlight, and the reflective surfaces that can comprise a holographic surface (as discussed in Claims 1 and 6) would then reflect at least a portion of that light. See Samaniego Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 9: “The augmented reality head worn display of claim 1, wherein the liquid crystal digital display comprises an LCD front surface and an LCD back surface, and wherein the backlight is positioned behind the LCD.” (Note that backlight is ordinarily positioned behind the LCD: “FIGS. 1 and 2 show an illustrative configuration of system 100 having a folded optical path. As shown, display system 100 includes a backlight 102 (shown only in FIG. 1), a display panel 104,” Amaniego, Paragraph 34 and Figs. 1, 2, 7-9.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The augmented reality head worn display of claim 9, wherein the transparent material has the front surface positioned adjacent to and optically aligned with the LCD back surface and has a transparent-material back surface opposite the front surface.” (Examiner notes that a transparent material ordinarily has a transparent-material back surface opposite the front surface. For example, “source light 112 may be guided to display panel 104 by one or more optical components (e.g., lenses, light guides, reflectors, mirrors, etc.)” which exemplify transparent materials with transparent material surfaces. See Samaniego, Paragraph 36.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The augmented reality head worn display of claim 10, wherein the backlight comprises at least one holographic surface positioned within or adjacent the transparent-material back surface and patterned to direct light received through the side surface of the transparent material toward the LCD back surface.” (As noted above, “source light 112 may be guided to display panel 104 by one or more optical components (e.g., lenses, light guides, reflectors, mirrors, etc.)” which exemplify transparent materials with transparent material surfaces. See Samaniego, Paragraph 36. “As mentioned above, light control device 802 may be implemented by a recorded holographic element that, when illuminated with a backlight” Samaniego, Paragraphs 103-104, 67 and Figs. 8-9.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights