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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran (US 20170085867) in view of Strandborg (US 12505766).
Regarding claim 1, Baran teaches a method of operating a stereoscopic display with an array of display pixels, comprising:
Rendering first content for a first layer and second content for a second layer (Paragraph 6, the multi-view display apparatus comprising at least two different layers including a first layer comprising a first plurality of optical elements and a second layer comprising a second plurality of optical elements);
For each frame in the second content:
Ray tracing to determine a respective calibration map for that frame (Paragraph 234, By tracing the paths of ray bundles 2007 and 2008 it is shown that the bouncing ray paths of ray bundle 2008 can equivalently be modeled as an additional additive optical modulator layer 2003 at a position 2s from optical modulator 2001);
While Baran fails to disclose the following, Strandborg teaches:
Mapping the first content to the array of display pixels using a stored calibration map (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation); and
Mapping the second content to the array of display pixels using the respective calibration map for that frame (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation; Column 5, Lines 54-55, This identification can be repeated for each of the plurality of multiscopic cells).
Strandborg and Baran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg and map content to the array of display pixels using a stored calibration map. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Baran and Strandborg teaches the method defined in claim 1. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Strandborg further teaches:
Wherein mapping the first content to the array of display pixels using the stored calibration map comprises mapping the first content to the array of display pixels using the stored calibration map after rendering the first content for the first layer and wherein ray tracing is not performed to obtain the stored calibration map after rendering the first content for the first layer (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation; Column 5, Lines 54-55, This identification can be repeated for each of the plurality of multiscopic cells).
Strandborg and Baran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg and retrieve the stored calibration map without ray tracing. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Baran and Strandborg teaches the method defined in claim 1, wherein ray tracing to determine the respective calibration map for that frame comprises ray tracing using stored deflection measurements associated with the array of display pixels (Baran, Paragraph 292, each pixel value corresponds to the desired color and/or intensity of a light ray to be emitted from a specific location and at a specific angle on the display surface).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Baran and Strandborg teaches the method defined in claim 1. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Strandborg further teaches:
Wherein ray tracing to determine the respective calibration map for that frame comprises ray tracing for only a subset of the array of display pixels (Column 12, Lines 18-20, This grouping defines the distinct set for that eye, ensuring that only those light-emitting cells whose rays contribute meaningfully to the perceived image are included).
Strandborg and Baran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg and retrieve the stored calibration map without ray tracing. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently constructing and reconstructing the desired content.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Baran and Strandborg teaches the method defined in claim 12, wherein the stereoscopic display has a first footprint with a first size, wherein the second content has a second footprint with a second size, and wherein the subset of the array of display pixels is associated with a bounding box having a third footprint with a third size that is between the first and second sizes (Paragraph 12, when the front transparent layer and the back transparent layer are different sizes). Note: Baran teaches at least two layers with different sizes. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a third layer with a size in between the first layer size and second layer size.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Baran and Strandborg teaches the method defined in claim 1, wherein mapping the first content to the array of display pixels using the stored calibration map comprises mapping the first content to the array of display pixels using the stored calibration map at a first frequency and wherein ray tracing to determine the respective calibration map for that frame comprises ray tracing to determine the respective calibration map for that frame at a second frequency that is greater than the first frequency (Baran, Paragraph 194, the inventors have identified many reasons to choose layers with different spatial sampling patterns or frequencies).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Strandborg as applied to claims 1, 10, 12 and 14 above and further in view of Jafarzadeh (US 20150215526).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baran and Strandborg teaches the method defined in claim 1, further comprising:
Rendering third content for a third layer that is between the first and second layers (Baran, Paragraph 89, the multi-view display apparatus may include one or more layers and/or components in addition to the first and second layers. For example, in some embodiments, the multi-view display apparatus may include one or more diffusers (e.g., a diffuser placed between the first and second layers)).
While the combination fails to disclose the following, Jafarzadeh teaches:
Mapping the third content to the array of display pixels using at least a rotational transformation (Paragraph 27, There can be various approaches to updating the views in response to device rotation or other such movement. For example, considering a lenticular with three images as in the previous example, rotating in a first direction might only display a certain view, while rotating in the opposite direction would display a different view).
Jafarzadeh and the combination of Baran and Strandborg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran and Strandborg to incorporate the teachings of Jafarzadeh and use rotational transformation to map the third content. Doing so would have allowed for displaying different views of the desired content.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh teaches the method defined in claim 2, wherein the first content comprises background content (Baran, Paragraph 12, a first target pattern for the front transparent layer and a second target pattern for the back transparent layer). Note: Baran teaches specifying the type of content that is displayed on each layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use background content for first content.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh teaches the method defined in claim 2, wherein the first content comprises static content (Baran, Paragraph 12, a first target pattern for the front transparent layer and a second target pattern for the back transparent layer). Note: Baran teaches specifying the type of content that is displayed on each layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use static content for first content.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh teaches the method defined in claim 4, wherein the second content comprises dynamic content (Baran, Paragraph 12, a first target pattern for the front transparent layer and a second target pattern for the back transparent layer). Note: Baran teaches specifying the type of content that is displayed on each layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use dynamic content for second content.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh teaches the method defined in claim 5, wherein the second content comprises rotational content (Jafarzadeh, Paragraph 27, There can be various approaches to updating the views in response to device rotation or other such movement. For example, considering a lenticular with three images as in the previous example, rotating in a first direction might only display a certain view, while rotating in the opposite direction would display a different view).
Jafarzadeh and the combination of Baran and Strandborg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran and Strandborg to incorporate the teachings of Jafarzadeh and use rotational transformation to map the third content. Doing so would have allowed for displaying different views of the desired content.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh teaches the method defined in claim 1, further comprising: outputting the mapped first content to a cache (Baran, Paragraph 280, In determining the values of display actuation signals in optimized multi-layer displays, including using the previously-mentioned techniques employing blurring transformations, the inventors have recognized the advantages of caching of actuation signals and/or the compositing of cached signals with other cached signals as well as those signals under optimization).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Strandborg in view of Jafarzadeh as applied to claims 2-7 above and further in view of Ng (US 20190149808).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh teaches the method defined in claim 7. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Ng teaches:
For each frame in the second content, providing the mapped first content from the cache to a frame buffer (Paragraph 160, When creating content for the multi-view display devices 100, one might expect to be able to create a single image (or frame buffer) and then assign parts of that image to be displayed on each individual MV display device 100 based on the physical arrangement of the MV display devices 100).
Ng and the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Jafarzadeh to incorporate the teachings of Ng and use a frame buffer for providing content. Doing so would allow easily assigning content to different layers and customizing the output.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, Jafarzadeh, and Ng teaches the method defined in claim 8. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Jafarzadeh further teaches:
For each frame in the second content, replacing pixel values in the mapped first content with pixel values from the mapped second content (Paragraph 29, interpolation or blending can be used between adjacent views in the lenticular to attempt to generate intermediate views).
Jafarzadeh and the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Ng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Ng to incorporate the teachings of Jafarzadeh and replace pixel values of the first content with values of the second content. Doing so would allow for effectively generating intermediate views, which can help to increase the three-dimensional or virtual object experience (Jafarzadeh, Paragraph 29).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Ng in view of Vdovin and further in view of Wang (US 20180199026).
Regarding claim 15, Baran teaches an electronic device comprising:
A cache that is configured to store mapped background content (Paragraph 280, In determining the values of display actuation signals in optimized multi-layer displays, including using the previously-mentioned techniques employing blurring transformations, the inventors have recognized the advantages of caching of actuation signals and/or the compositing of cached signals with other cached signals as well as those signals under optimization);
Receive the mapped background content (Paragraph 12, a first target pattern for the front transparent layer and a second target pattern for the back transparent layer) from the cache and dynamic content that is mapped based on ray tracing (Paragraph 234, By tracing the paths of ray bundles 2007 and 2008 it is shown that the bouncing ray paths of ray bundle 2008 can equivalently be modeled as an additional additive optical modulator layer 2003 at a position 2s from optical modulator 2001);
While Baran fails to disclose the following, Ng teaches:
A frame buffer that is configured to, for each one of the sequential frames (Paragraph 160, When creating content for the multi-view display devices 100, one might expect to be able to create a single image (or frame buffer) and then assign parts of that image to be displayed on each individual MV display device 100 based on the physical arrangement of the MV display devices 100);
Ng and Baran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to incorporate the teachings of Ng and use a frame buffer for providing content. Doing so would allow easily assigning content to different layers and customizing the output.
While the combination of Baran and Ng fails to disclose the following, Vdovin teaches:
An array of display pixels that presents images in sequential frames (Paragraph 2, array of display pixels);
Lenticular lenses formed over the array of display pixels (Paragraph 2, Outputs from the display pixels are projected through these lenticular lenses);
Vdovin and the combination of Baran and Ng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran and Ng to incorporate the teachings of Vdovin and use lenticular lenses and map an array of display pixels. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
While the combination of Baran, Ng, and Vdovin fails to disclose the following, Wang teaches:
Display driver circuitry configured to receive an array of brightness values for the array of display pixels from the frame buffer and drive the array of display pixels using the array of brightness values (Paragraph 10, the drive module is configured to drive the first display pixels of the display panel to alternately display image-pixels corresponding to a first image and image-pixels corresponding to a second image in the row direction; Paragraph 47, the brightness of the display device are key parameters of the display device).
Wang and the combination of Baran, Ng, and Vdovin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran, Ng, and Vdovin to incorporate the teachings of Wang and use pixel brightness values. Doing so would allow for effectively displaying the pixel data.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Baran, Ng, Vdovin, and Wang teaches the electronic device in claim 15 further comprising:
Pixel mapping circuitry (Paragraph 31, mapping between pixel indices and the locations of the associated output light ray intensities) configured to output the dynamic content (Paragraph 12, a first target pattern for the front transparent layer and a second target pattern for the back transparent layer).
While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Ng further teaches:
Frame buffer (Paragraph 160, When creating content for the multi-view display devices 100, one might expect to be able to create a single image (or frame buffer) and then assign parts of that image to be displayed on each individual MV display device 100 based on the physical arrangement of the MV display devices 100);
Ng and the combination of Baran, Vdovin, and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran, Vdovin, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Ng and use a frame buffer for providing content. Doing so would allow easily assigning content to different layers and customizing the output.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Baran, Ng, Vdovin, and Wang teaches the electronic device defined in claim 16, wherein the pixel mapping circuitry (Paragraph 31, mapping between pixel indices and the locations of the associated output light ray intensities) is configured to output the mapped background content (Paragraph 12, a first target pattern for the front transparent layer and a second target pattern for the back transparent layer) to the cache (Paragraph 280, In determining the values of display actuation signals in optimized multi-layer displays, including using the previously-mentioned techniques employing blurring transformations, the inventors have recognized the advantages of caching of actuation signals and/or the compositing of cached signals with other cached signals as well as those signals under optimization).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Ng in view of Vdovin in view of Wang and further in view of Strandborg.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Baran, Ng, Vdovin, and Wang teaches the electronic device defined in claim 16. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Strandborg further teaches:
Wherein the pixel mapping circuitry is configured to receive a calibration map associated with rendered dynamic content and output the dynamic content based on the calibration map and rendered dynamic content (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation). Note: Baran teaches the rendered dynamic content.
Strandborg and the combination of Baran, Ng, Vdovin, and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran, Ng, Vdovin, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg to output a calibration map of rendered content. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
Claims 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran (US 20170085867) in view of Strandborg (US 12505766) and further in view of Vdovin (US 20180011332).
Regarding claim 19, Baran teaches an electronic device, comprising:
Ray tracing circuitry that is configured to:
Receive first rendered content at a first update frequency (Paragraph 194, the inventors have identified many reasons to choose layers with different spatial sampling patterns or frequencies);
Receive second rendered content at a second frequency that is greater than the first update frequency (Paragraph 194, the inventors have identified many reasons to choose layers with different spatial sampling patterns or frequencies);
While Baran fails to disclose the following, Strandborg teaches:
Output a first calibration map associated with the first rendered content at the first update frequency (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation); Note: Baran teaches the first update frequency.
Output a second calibration map associated with the second rendered content at the second update frequency (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation). Note: Baran teaches the second update frequency.
Strandborg and Baran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg to output a calibration map of rendered content. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
While the combination of Baran and Strandborg fails to disclose the following, Vdovin teaches:
An array of display pixels (Paragraph 2, array of display pixels);
Lenticular lenses formed over the array of display pixels (Paragraph 2, Outputs from the display pixels are projected through these lenticular lenses);
Vdovin and the combination of Baran and Strandborg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg and use an array of display pixels and form lenticular lenses. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Baran, Strandborg, and Vdovin teaches the electronic device defined in claim 19. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Strandborg further teaches:
Pixel mapping circuitry configured to map the first rendered content to the array of display pixels using the first calibration map and map the second rendered content to the array of display pixels using the second calibration map (Column 7, Lines 63-64, mapping the contributing regions to corresponding pixel locations in the image; Column 5, Lines 44-52, As another example, to reduce computation, the multiscopic display can be calibrated in advance. For each multiscopic cell and for a range of possible eye positions, a mapping table of contributing light-emitting cells is pre-computed. During operation, a current eye position of the given eye is used to look up a corresponding set of light-emitting cells from the table. Such a calibration may be performed once during manufacture or installation, and reused for subsequent operation).
Strandborg and the combination of Baran and Vdovin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baran and Vdovin to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg to output a calibration map of rendered content. Doing so would have allowed for efficiently reconstructing the desired content.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Vdovin.
Regarding claim 21, Baran teaches a method of operating a stereoscopic display with an array of display pixels, comprising:
Rendering first content for a first layer at a first apparent depth and second content for a second layer at a second apparent depth (Paragraph 88, the first layer may be spaced in depth at a distance of less than six millimeters from the second layer)
Performing ray tracing to calculate intersection points of rays associated with the array of display pixels with the first and second layers, wherein performing the ray tracing comprises, for each pixel in the array of display pixels (Paragraph 234, By tracing the paths of ray bundles 2007 and 2008 it is shown that the bouncing ray paths of ray bundle 2008 can equivalently be modeled as an additional additive optical modulator layer 2003 at a position 2s from optical modulator 2001):
Using the inverse of the direction of the ray to determine a first intersection point with the first layer and a second intersection point with the second layer (Paragraph 234, Ray 2005 is transmitted directly through both layers. In some treatments ray 2006, which is emitted from x0_1, reflected from x1_1 and x0_0 and passes through x1_0 before being observed by viewer 2004 may be ignored. However, it may be advantageous to account for the effect of ray 2006 and other such reflected rays).
While Baran fails to disclose the following, Vdovin teaches:
Determining an inverse of a direction of a ray associated with that pixel (Paragraph 36, The vector p defines the spatial relationship between the pixel (or sub-pixel) grid and the grid of lenses. Thus, it defines a mapping between the pixels (or sub-pixels) and the lenses);
Note: It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Vdovin and inverse the direction of the ray.
Vdovin and Baran are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baran to incorporate the teachings of Vdovin and determine the inverse of a direction of a ray associated with a pixel. Doing so would have allowed for using ray tracing to determine the direction of view.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 February 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 15, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly added references Baran, Strandborg, and Ng.
Regarding claim 1, Baran teaches ray tracing and Strandborg teaches the stored calibration map.
Regarding claim 15, Baran teaches ray tracing, mapped background content, dynamic content, and a cache and Ng teaches the frame buffer and sequential frames.
Regarding claim 19, Baran teaches the first update frequency and the second update frequency.
Regarding claim 21, Baran teaches ray tracing and layers at different depths.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights