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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 11, and 17 being independent, claim 21 is a newly added claim.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: The claimed “re-use” of the correction matrix is distinguishable over the combination of Vinay (WO 2021226535 A1) and Scott (WO 2018183025 A1) and further asserts that the cited art fails to teach or suggest the re-use of the same correction matrix in multiple settings, including LSR setting and a non-LSR setting.
Examiner replies: During the prior interview, the Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments presented in the interview agenda sent on 11/21/2025 appeared to overcome the prior art of record. However, the amendments presently entered differ from those previously discussed, and upon further review and consideration of the currently amended claim language and prior art references, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner determines that the combination of Vinay and Scott continues to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, as set forth below.
Scott discloses that transformations, including matrix transformations, may be applied to image layers “either during the LSR processing or during the composite processing” (Scott Par. 0064). Thus, Scott explicitly teaches applying transformation operations both within and outside of LSR processing. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “re-using the correction matrix” encompasses applying transformation data multiple times during different stages of processing. Scott’s disclosure of applying matrix transformations during both LSR and composite processing reasonably teaches or suggest the re-use (Scott Par. 0064; computer system 200 also applies one or more transformation to one or more of the layers. These transformations may be applied either during the LSR processing or during the composite processing…). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reuse a previously computed transformation matrix in subsequent processing stages (during composition) in order to reduce computational overhead and maintain consistency across rendering stages. Accordingly, the combination of Vinay and Scott continues to render the amended claims obvious
Regarding the remaining arguments: Applicant argues with respect to the amended claim language, which is fully addressed in the prior art rejections set forth below.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinay et al. (WO 2021226535 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Vinay”, in view of Scott et al. (WO 2018183025 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Scott”.
Regarding claim 1, Vinay discloses a method for performing tiled composition to restrict which layers are considered when performing an image composition process (Par. 0007; A reprojection engine that identifies the multiple layers including the virtual objects may perform per layer reprojection on the virtual objects…The multiple layers may correspond to bounding boxes that are respectively defined around the virtual objects identified from the single layer eye buffer. After the virtual objects are separately reprojected, the virtual objects may be composited into a single frame to be displayed at a display device), the method comprising:
accessing, for each image layer in a plurality of image layers (Par. 0007-0009; Virtual objects included in a single layer eye buffer…and respectively associated with multiple layers…multiple layers may correspond to bounding boxes that are respectively defined around the virtual objects identified….obtain a layer of graphics data including a plurality of objects), a corresponding color image and a corresponding depth image such that multiple color images and multiple depth images are accessed (Par. 0074-0076; To determine where a vertex in the display space is located in the eye buffer, a point in the display space may be mapped to one or more points in an eye buffer space…each of the bounding boxes may be configured for different depths…Vertex information including the (Ui, Vi) coordinates, three-dimensional point locations, and whether the points are within a bounding box for each homography may be transmitted to a fragment shader 906 to determine triangle information for multiple triangles defined according to the initial set of vertices in the display space…For every pixel the fragment shader 906 renders, both a color of the pixel and a depth of the pixel may be determined and associated with the bounding box for the plane)
(Par. 0070-0073; generate the respective bounding boxes/multiple layers…bounding boxes to be modified based on an intersection/union of bounding boxes…generated for performing warping…vertex shader 904…N matrix transformations (e.g., Mi, M.sub.2, …, M.sub.N) may be performed on a rendered image…constant corrections. Par. 0079; associate a parametrized mesh with a virtual surface of the content included in the bounding box (e.g., rather than determining plane parameters) and reproject the parametrized surface to perform the warp…) to restrict which image layers in the plurality of image layers are considered for a subsequent image composition process (Par. 0079; The parameters of the mesh may be associated with metadata used for the reprojection/warping…define the mesh that is to incorporated within the bounding box…the parameters of the mesh (e.g., coefficients of the polynomial function) may then be used as the metadata for the reprojection/warping. Par. 0083; client 1104 may reproject the plurality of virtual objects based on the first metadata received…composite the reprojected virtual objects into a same frame for being displayed), wherein the image layers that are considered for the subsequent image composition process form a set of selected image layers (Fig. 11),
and using the set of guidance composition meshes to guide performance of the image composition process (Par. 0079; parameters of the mesh may be associated with metadata used for the reprojection/warping), wherein guiding the performance of the image composition process includes selecting one or more shaders for use during the image composition process (Par. 0072-0077; vertex shader 904, fragment shader 906, vertex shader 1004), wherein the image composition process (Fig. 11; define bounding boxes…separate plurality of virtual objects into separate layers based on bounding boxes…reproject plurality of virtual objects based on first metadata and second metadata…composite reprojected virtual objects into a same frame) includes composing pixels from a specific image layer included among the set of selected image layers while refraining from composing pixels that are occluded by the composed pixels (Par. 0076; vertex shader 1004 may subsequently provide vertex information to the fragment shader 1006 to render both a color of the pixels and a depth of the pixels associated with the bounding box), and wherein the specific image layer is one that is determined to be closest to a user (Fig. 11; eye buffer and Par. 0055; eye-pose information…focal direction) to whom images generated from the image composition process are displayed (Par. 0007; After the virtual objects are separately reprojected, the virtual objects may be composited into a single frame to be displayed at a display device).
Vinay does not disclose using, for a first time, a correction matrix to perform a late stage reprojection (LSR) operation on the plurality of image layers to produce corresponding reprojected color images and corresponding reprojected depth image, and after the correction matrix was used for the first time to perform the LSR operation, re-using the correction matrix.
In the same art of multilayer reprojection, Scott discloses using, for a first time, a correction matrix (Par. 0064; matrix transformation. Par. 0101; LSR processing applied to the second layer includes one or more transformations (e.g.…a matrix transformation) to perform a late stage reprojection (LSR) operation (Par. 0049-0055; Late State Reprojection ("LSR")) on the plurality of image layers to produce corresponding reprojected color images and corresponding reprojected depth image (Par. 0062-0064; LSR component 220…LSR processing is applied to the various layers of the scene (e.g., the FG layer 320 and the BG layer 330)… computer system 200 also applies one or more transformations to one or more of the layers. These transformations may be applied either during the LSR processing or during the composite processing)
after the correction matrix was used for the first time to perform the LSR operation, re-using the correction matrix (Par. 0064; the computer system 200 also applies one or more transformations to one or more of the layers. These transformations may be applied either during the LSR processing or during the composite processing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the multi-layer reprojection and mesh-based composition techniques of Vinay with the late-stage reprojection (LSR) processing using matrix transformations as taught by Scott. Doing so improves the accuracy and efficiency of image composition in a multi-layer rendering pipeline. Vinay discloses generating and using parameterized meshes and data to guide reprojection and composition of multiple image layers, while Scott teaches applying matrix-based transformations during LSR or composite processing, therefore, using known transformation techniques to improve a similar rendering system would predictably enhance spatial alignment and depth consistency across layers during both reprojection and subsequent composition stages, while reducing computational overhead (Scott Par. 0006; In an effort to reduce or eliminate some of the foregoing rendering errors, existing systems apply late-stage corrections to make final adjustments to the image after the image rendered by the GPU. This process is performed before the pixels are displayed so as to compensate for the latest rotation, translation, and/or magnifications resulting from the user's head movement).
Regarding claim 2, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein resolutions of the multiple color images are different than resolutions of the multiple depth images (Scott Par. 0060-0061; the FG layer 320 is rendered according to a first resolution while the BG layer 330 is rendered according to a second resolution…Examiner’s note: each plurality of layers comprise of depth information and color information as shown in Par. 0064 “To ensure that the layers are properly visualized in the scene (e.g., to ensure that the layers are visualized with correct depth and orientation with regard to one another), the computer system 200 also applies one or more transformations to one or more of the layers…depth processing transformations” and Par. 0103 “in addition to the above-mentioned transformations…color or transparency of the various layers of the scene may need to be altered. Therefore, in addition to size transformation, the one or more transformations also include color and transparency transformations”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vinay’s multi-layer reprojection system to incorporate Scott’s rendering of image layers at different resolutions. The motivation lies in the advantage of reduced processing demands while maintaining depth fidelity. Resolution management is a well-known technique in the art and yields predictable results in optimized computational efficiency and improved rendering performance during tiled composition
Regarding claim 3, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses wherein a resolution of a particular depth image is half a resolution of a particular color image (Scott Par. 0061; because the BG layer 330 includes content that appears to be visually "further away" from the user, the content in the BG layer can be rendered at a lower resolution…the FG layer 320 may be placed in the higher resolution area (i.e. the fovea area).
Although Scott does not explicitly disclose that the BG layer is rendered at exactly half a resolution of an FG layer, Scott does disclose rendering the background layer at a lower resolution than the foreground layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the relative resolution of depth and color images.
Under MPEP § 2144.05, when a claimed proportion or range overlaps, approaches, or is inside the range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. There is no showing that the claimed proportion of “half” is critical or produces a result different from other lower-resolution ratios (MPEP § 2144.05 Section I. “In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934) (the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical)”). Whether it is exactly half or a lower resolution would have predictably yielded the same result of reduced computational load while retaining the image quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select a 50% resolution ratio as an obvious matter of design optimization to achieve the same expected performance benefits.
Regarding claim 4, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein generating the set of guidance composition meshes that operate to restrict which image layers in the plurality of image layers are considered for the subsequent image composition process (Vinay Par. 0079; The parameters of the mesh may be associated with metadata used for the reprojection/warping…define the mesh that is to incorporated within the bounding box…the parameters of the mesh (e.g., coefficients of the polynomial function) may then be used as the metadata for the reprojection/warping. Par. 0083; client 1104 may reproject the plurality of virtual objects based on the first metadata received…composite the reprojected virtual objects into a same frame for being displayed includes performing a source tile extraction operation that produces a set of source space tiles, wherein said source tile extraction operation includes splitting each image layer of the plurality of image layers (Vinay Par. 0056-0057; FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 for defining a gridded bounding box 508 having metadata 510 associated with one or more tiles 506 of a grid 504…The grid 504 may be a 4 x 4 grid having 16 grid tiles 506…each grid tile 506 may correspond to a separate bounding box…) into a set of non-overlapping tiles (Vinay Par. 0050; Bounding boxes defined around the virtual content received from the AR application 302 may correspond to respective pseudo layers)
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the source tile extraction operation further includes scanning depth pixels of the depth images (Vinay Par. 0075; For every pixel the fragment shader 906 renders, both a color of the pixel and a depth of the pixel may be determined and associated with the bounding box for the plane) assigned to each of the non-overlapping tiles and determining a minimum depth and a maximum depth for said each non-overlapping tile (Vinay Par. 0057; Each grid tile 506, may further include depth buffer information utilized to determine parameters, metadata, etc., for reprojecting the content of the grid tiles 506 included in the gridded bounding box 508).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the source tile extraction operation further includes determining a content coverage for pixels in each of the non-overlapping tiles (Vinay Par. 0075-0077; every pixel the fragment shader 906 renders…vertex shader 1004 may subsequently provide vertex information to the fragment shader 1006 to render both a color of the pixels and a depth of the pixels associated with the bounding box).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses wherein said reprojection is performed by reprojecting each tile in the set of non-overlapping tiles based on that tile’s minimum depth and maximum depth using the correction matrix (Vinay Par. 0057; Each grid tile 506, may further include depth buffer information utilized to determine parameters, metadata, etc., for reprojecting the content of the grid tiles 506 included in the gridded bounding box 508).
Vinay does not disclose wherein the set of non-overlapping tiles are reprojected using the correction matrix used during performance of the LSR operation.
In the same art of multilayer reprojection, Scott discloses wherein the set of non-overlapping tiles are reprojected using the correction matrix used during performance of the LSR operation (Par. 0064; matrix transformation. Par. 0101; LSR processing applied to the second layer includes one or more transformations (e.g.…a matrix transformation)).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses performing occlusion culling on the set of non-overlapping tiles by determining whether a particular tile in the set of non-overlapping tiles is a potential occluder for other tiles that are behind said particular tile (Vinay Par. 0074; …For every vertex, a mapping may be determined for the homographies associated with (xi, yi, zi) through (x.sub.N, y.sub.N, z.sub.N) to project the corresponding points to the eye buffer space. Coordinates for the points may be linked to the bounding boxes. However, if a point is determined to be outside of a specific bounding box in the display space when the point is projected based on a homography, content corresponding to such point in the display space may not be linked to the specific bounding box…), wherein, for tiles that are fully occluded by the particular tile, those occluded tiles are culled by removing them from consideration during the image composition process (Vinay Par. 0083; the client 1104 may reproject the plurality of virtual objects based on the first metadata received, at 1110, associated with the plurality of virtual objects and the second metadata received, at 1112, associated with warping the bounding boxes. At 1116, the client 1104 may composite the reprojected virtual objects into a same frame).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses merging information across one or more of the image layers to create a set of screen tiles (Vinay Par. 0072-0076; FIG. 9…illustrating a one-step warping technique based on a vertex grid defined for a display space), wherein each of the screen tiles includes information about layers in the plurality of layers that are potentially visible (Vinay Par. 0072; A vertex shader 904 may perform APR homography with respect to each of the bounding boxes based on receiving, as input, N homographies from an APR homography determination module 902 that receives the display pose, the N bounding boxes, N sets of plane parameters, and the rendered head pose. Hence, N matrix transformations (e.g., Mi, M.sub.2, . . . , M.sub.N) may be performed on a rendered image), wherein each layer that is potentially visible corresponds to a corresponding shader program permutation (Vinay Par. 0074; For every vertex, a mapping may be determined for the homographies associated with (xi, yi, zi) through (x.sub.N, y.sub.N, z.sub.N) to project the corresponding points to the eye buffer space. Coordinates for the points may be linked to the bounding boxes), and wherein each corresponding shader program permutation is optimized to sample only from those layers that are potentially visible (Vinay Par. 0076; the vertex shader 1004 may determine the criteria for completing a given set of vertices based on a single matrix transformation that corresponds to the bounding box including the given set of vertices. The vertex shader 1004 may determine the (xi, yi, zi) coordinates which, in the display space, may be relative to the display pose. After the (Ui, Vi) coordinate is determined in the display space, the vertex point in the eye buffer space may be determined based on an output of the vertex grid determination module 1008)
and merging the shader program permutations together into a single permutation map (Vinay Par. 0076; The vertex shader 1004 may subsequently provide vertex information to the fragment shader 1006 to render both a color of the pixels and a depth of the pixels associated with the bounding box).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses extracting multiple guidance composition meshes from the single permutation map, wherein the multiple guidance composition meshes constitute the set of guidance composition meshes (Vinay Par. 0079; a further warping technique may be to associate a parametrized mesh with a virtual surface of the content included in the bounding boc…and reproject the parametrized surface to perform the warp),
and using the multiple guidance composition meshes during the image composition process to compose the pixels from the specific image layer that is determined to be closest to the selected user while refraining from composing the pixels that are occluded by the composed pixels (Vinay Par. 0079; The parameters of the mesh may be associated with the metadata used for the reprojection/warping. The parametrization may be indicated based on a polynomial function (e.g., z=f(x, y), where z is the approximated depth at pixel (x, y)). That is, the depth buffer z may be determined based on function fix, y) being solved for every pixel in the eye buffer to define the mesh that is to be incorporated within the bounding box. The parameters of the mesh (e.g., coefficients of the polynomial function) may then be used as the metadata for the reprojection/warping).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is the system claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the computer system of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the LSR operation is performed separately on each of the image layers (Par. 0070; the various layers may each undergo the same or different LSR processing, depending on the LSR processing being performed and the detected movements of the HMD. in a worst-case scenario, all of the pixels in all of the layers undergo LSR processing…).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vinay’s multi-layer reprojection system to integrate Scott’s per-layer late-stage reprojection control. The motivation lies in the advantage of allowing independent and accurate corrections for each depth layer, yielding the predictable result of visual coherence in multi-layer augmented-reality compositions.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has similar limitations as of claim 4, except it is a system claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media), therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has similar limitations as of claim 5, except it is a system claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media), therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has similar limitations as of claim 6, except it is a system claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media), therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has similar limitations as of claim 7, except it is a system claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media), therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is the device claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device… extended reality (XR) devices such as AR devices and/or VR devices. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has similar limitations as of claim 2, except it is a device claim (see Vinay Par. 0003; computing device…extended reality (XR) devices such as AR devices and/or VR devices. Par. 0038; processing unit 120. Par. 0031; computer readable storage media), therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the HMD of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the image composition process generates a hologram comprising a virtual desktop slate (Vinay Par. 0035; the one or more displays 131 may include one or more of a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display, an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a projection display device, an augmented reality display device, a virtual reality display device, a head-mounted display, or any other type of display device. Par. 0083; client 1104 may composite the reprojected virtual objects into a same frame for being displayed on an XR display device).
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the HMD of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the plurality of image layers are received over a network connection from a cloud service (Vinay Par. 0066; rendering and display processes that are split among a server device on a server-side of a wireless network and a client device on a device-side of the wireless network…client device, such as AR headsets…server device, such as smartphone, remote server, edge server, etc.)
Vinay and Scott are combined for the reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinay et al. (WO 2021226535 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Vinay”, in view of Scott et al. (WO 2018183025 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Scott”, in further view of Van Waveren "The asynchronous time warp for virtual reality on consumer hardware." In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 37-46. 2016.
Regarding claim 21, Vinay in view of Scott discloses the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the same correction matrix is used for a second time and is used outside of the LSR operation.
Van Waveren discloses wherein the same correction matrix is used for a second time and is used outside of the LSR operation (Pg. 37, Section 1; time warp…retrieves updated head tracking information, and transforms a stereoscopic pair of images from representing a view at the time it was rendered, to representing the correct view at the time it is displayed…).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reuse the correction matrix generated during LSR, as taught by Vinay and Scott’s combined system, in a subsequent image composition or display stage, as taught by Van Waveren. Doing so avoids redundant transformation calculations, and maintain spatial consistency across rendering stages. The re-use of transformation matrices across multiple stages of a rendering pipeline is a well-known technique in virtual reality systems, yielding predictable results in improved efficiency and reducing latency.
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 JENNY NGAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6888. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/JENNY N TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights