DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/08/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1 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 1 recites the limitation "a state" in line 5. Claim 1 also refers to “a state” in line 3. It is unclear if these states are the same or different. If different, it is unclear what constitutes the different states. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 fail to further define the different states recited in claim 1 and thus are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency of claim 1.
Claim 12 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 12 recites the limitation "a state" in line 8. Claim 12 also refers to “a state” in line 7. It is unclear if these states are the same or different. If different, it is unclear what constitutes the different states. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-20 fail to further define the different states recited in claim 12 and thus are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency of claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al. (KR10-2020-0000293) in view of YABU (2016/0073047 A1).
RE claim 1, Jeong teaches an adjustable size display device [0001]. Jeong teaches a method of controlling a display device in which a size of an exposed display region is changed, the method comprising:
Fig. 1, the display (110) comprising the display device (100) can be implemented as a rollable display [0039]. The actuator (130) is installed inside housings and it can be implemented in order to move the display (110) to top and bottom about the house (10) [0048]. Jeong teaches:
(a)
outputting content in a first region of a partial region of the display region in a state in which only the partial region of the display region is exposed;
As shown in Fig. 9 of Jeong, video content is displayed in a partial region of the display (110) [0111].
(b)
receiving a first control signal in a state in which content is output in the first region, and
Jeong teaches the first part of the display (110) is located outside of the housing (10) and the second part of the display (120) is located inside the housing (10) [0064]. Jeong further teaches an event for displaying GUI comprises a user instruction for displaying the GUI (e.g., OSD menu) on the display device (100) is inputted through the external device (e.g., Set Top Box) via a remote control (said receiving a first control signal) [0064].
(c)
outputting an on screen display (OSD) menu in at least one of the first region and a second region of the partial region.
Jeong teaches displaying the GUI (e.g., OSD menu) on the display device (100) based on a user instruction [0064]. However, Jeong fails to disclose outputting the OSD menu in a first or second region of the partial region.
Yabu teaches displaying an OSD with video content. As shown in the flow of Fig. 3, Fig. 3A illustrates a video (50) is displayed on displaying unit (54) (said outputting content in a first region) [0074]. Fig. 3C illustrates the situation when STB (14) receives a user’s operation (said receiving a first control signal) [0076]. As can be seen, the video (50) of Fig. 3A is displayed during the user’s operation (said receiving a first control signal in a state in which content is output in the first region). As a result of the received user’s operation, OSD image (52) is superimposed on video (50) according to this operation (said outputting an OSD menu in at least one of the first region) [0076], where the location of video (50) can be associated with the claimed first region.
Thus, in the combined invention of Jeong in view of Yabu, the video (50) of Yabu is displayed on the exposed display (110) of Jeong (said outputting content in a first region of a partial region of the display region in a state in which only the partial region of the display region is exposed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the display of Jeong to overlay the OSD on the video content as taught by Yabu, without the need to extend the display to display the OSD as currently taught by Jeong (see Fig. 9b [0110-0113]) because Jeong teaches the display is already “calibrated” based on the position of the user (see Fig. 4a, [0087-0089]). By altering the size of the display to accommodate the OSD as taught by Jeong, it requires the user to modify their line of sight, such as shown in Fig. 9b. By modifying the display of Jeong to overlay the OSD in the already exposed display of Jeong, the user does not have to adjust their line of sight to view both the OSD and the video content. This would provide a comfortable transition of displaying the OSD to the viewer as they are viewing video content.
RE claim 2, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches based on the OSD menu being output in the first region, outputting the OSD menu and the content together.
As taught in the rationale of claim 1(c), Yabu is relied upon as displaying the OSD and the video content together in the same region the video content was initially displayed [0076]. The same motivation to combine as taught in the rationale of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
RE claim 3, claim 3 is dependent on claim 1. The language of claim 1 recites, “outputting an on screen display (OSD) menu in at least one of the first and a second region of the partial region”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches displaying the OSD in the claimed first region (see the rationale of claim 1(c)). It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of outputting an OSD in a second region of the partial region are mute. Claim 3 recites displaying the OSD menu in both the first and second region which cannot be applicable since claim 1 is selected to only display the OSD menu in the first region. Thus, the limitation of 3 is mute.
RE claim 4, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches:
(a)
based on the content and the OSD menu being simultaneously output in the first region,
As taught in the rationale of claim 1(c) and in further view of Yabu, Fig. 3C illustrates the situation when STB (14) receives a user’s operation [0076]. As a result of the received user’s operation, OSD image (52) is superimposed on video (50) according to this operation (said simultaneous) [0076], where the location of video (50) can be associated with the claimed first region.
(b)
scaling an image signal corresponding to the content and the OSD menu based on a size of the partial region of the display region.
Jeong teaches the processor (140) can control the input according to the height of the display (110) to include multiple modes [0085]. The processor (140) can expand the display size of the video content to the maximum based on the task area size of the exposed display (110) [0086]. In further view of Yabu, Yabu teaches displaying the OSD and video content together [Fig. 3(c)]. Therefore, in the combined invention, Jeong adjusts what is being displayed based on exposed display (110), where the OSD and video content and being displayed.
The same motivation to combine as taught in the rationale of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
RE claim 5, claim 5 is dependent on claim 1. The language of claim 1 recites, “outputting an on screen display (OSD) menu in at least one of the first and a second region of the partial region”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches displaying the OSD in the claimed first region (see the rationale of claim 1(c)). It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of outputting an OSD in a second region of the partial region are mute. Claim 5 recites the OSD menu being output in the second region which cannot be applicable since claim 1 is selected to only display the OSD menu in the first region. Thus, the limitation of claim 5 is mute.
RE claim 6, claim 6 is dependent on claim 1. The language of claim 1 recites, “outputting an on screen display (OSD) menu in at least one of the first and a second region of the partial region”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches displaying the OSD in the claimed first region (see the rationale of claim 1(c)). It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of outputting an OSD in a second region of the partial region are mute. Claim 6 recites the OSD menu being output in the second region which cannot be applicable since claim 1 is selected to only display the OSD menu in the first region. Thus, the limitation of claim 6 is mute.
RE claim 8, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches
(a)
based on receiving of an input signal of selecting a first menu of the OSD menu in a state in which the OSD menu is currently output,
Jeong teaches an event for displaying GUI comprises a user instruction for displaying the GUI (e.g., OSD menu) on the display device (100) is inputted through the external device (e.g., Set Top Box) via a remote control (said OSD menu) [0064]. Jeong further teaches displaying EPG information [0113] which is well known to allow a user to select a television program for display (said selecting a first menu).
Yabu teaches displaying an OSD with video content. As shown in the flow of Fig. 3, Fig. 3A illustrates a video (50) is displayed on displaying unit (54) (said outputting content in a first region) [0074]. Fig. 3C illustrates the situation when STB (14) receives a user’s operation (said receiving a first control signal) [0076]. As can be seen, the video (50) of Fig. 3A is displayed during the user’s operation (said receiving a first control signal in a state in which content is output in the first region). As a result of the received user’s operation, OSD image (52) is superimposed on video (50) according to this operation (said outputting an OSD menu in at least one of the first region) [0076], where the location of video (50) can be associated with the claimed first region. Yabu teaches the STB (14) receives a channel selected from a plurality of channels broadcast by broadcast station (12) according to a user’s instruction, and outputs video signals of this channel to video reception device (40) [0038].
(b)
outputting content corresponding to the first menu in the first region.
Jeong further teaches displaying EPG information [0113] which is well known to allow a user to select a television program for display (said selecting a first menu). Yabu teaches the STB (14) receives a channel selected from a plurality of channels broadcast by broadcast station (12) according to a user’s instruction, and outputs video signals of this channel to video reception device (40) (said outputting content) [0038].
Therefore, in the combined invention, the EPG information of Jeong is displayed within the OSD image of Yabu.
The same motivation to combine as taught in the rationale of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
RE claim 11, Jeong teaches wherein content displayed in the first region is content displayed immediately before the display device is turned off.
Jeong teaches the ability of the whole-area of the display (110) is accepted in the housing (10) and the user is sensed in the state where the display (110) is turned off [0076]. It is implied that turning off the display would turn off whatever was initially displayed on the display when the display was on. Therefore, when the video content was displayed and now the display is turned off, the video content was displayed immediately before the display device was turned off, and retracted into the housing.
RE claim 12, Jeong teaches an adjustable size display device [0001]. Jeong teaches a display device comprising:
(i)
a display including a display region in which content is output;
Display (110) comprising the display device (100) can be implemented as a rollable display [0039].
(ii)
a memory configured to store at least one data;
The processor (140) executes at least one instruction stored in the memory [0049].
(iii)
a motor controlled to expose a partial region of the display region; and
The actuator (130) is installed inside the housing and it can be implemented in order to move the display (110) to top and bottom about the housing (10) [0048]. The processor (140) can determine the screen size exposed (110) [0053].
(iv)
a controller configured to control the display, the memory, and the motor,
Fig. 1, Jeong teaches the display (110) can be exposed to the outside at various heights according to an event [0042]. The processor (140) controls the overall operation of the display device (100) [0049].
wherein:
(a)
output content in a first region of the partial region in the state in which only the partial region of the display region is exposed;
As shown in Fig. 9 of Jeong, video content is displayed in a partial region of the display (110) [0111].
(b)
a first control signal is received in a state in which content is output in the first region, and
Jeong teaches the first part of the display (110) is located outside of the housing (10) and the second part of the display (120) is located inside the housing (10) [0064]. Jeong further teaches an event for displaying GUI comprises a user instruction for displaying the GUI (e.g., OSD menu) on the display device (100) is inputted through the external device (e.g., Set Top Box) via a remote control (said receiving a first control signal) [0064].
(c)
an on screen display (OSD) menu is output in at least one of the first region and a second region of the partial region.
Jeong teaches displaying the GUI (e.g., OSD menu) on the display device (100) based on a user instruction [0064]. However, Jeong fails to disclose outputting the OSD menu in a first or second region of the partial region.
Yabu teaches displaying an OSD with video content. As shown in the flow of Fig. 3, Fig. 3A illustrates a video (50) is displayed on displaying unit (54) (said outputting content in a first region) [0074]. Fig. 3C illustrates the situation when STB (14) receives a user’s operation (said receiving a first control signal) [0076]. As can be seen, the video (50) of Fig. 3A is displayed during the user’s operation (said receiving a first control signal in a state in which content is output in the first region). As a result of the received user’s operation, OSD image (52) is superimposed on video (50) according to this operation (said outputting an OSD menu in at least one of the first region) [0076], where the location of video (50) can be associated with the claimed first region.
Thus, in the combined invention of Jeong in view of Yabu, the video (50) of Yabu is displayed on the exposed display (110) of Jeong (said outputting content in a first region of a partial region of the display region in a state in which only the partial region of the display region is exposed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the display of Jeong to overlay the OSD on the video content as taught by Yabu, without the need to extend the display to display the OSD as currently taught by Jeong (see Fig. 9b [0110-0113]) because Jeong teaches the display is already “calibrated” based on the position of the user (see Fig. 4a, [0087-0089]). By altering the size of the display to accommodate the OSD as taught by Jeong, it requires the user to modify their line of sight, such as shown in Fig. 9b. By modifying the display of Jeong to overlay the OSD in the already exposed display of Jeong, the user does not have to adjust their line of sight to view both the OSD and the video content. This would provide a comfortable transition of displaying the OSD to the viewer as they are viewing video content.
RE claim 13, claim 13 is dependent on claim 12. The language of claim 12 recites, “an on screen display (OSD) menu is output in at least one of the first and a second region of the partial region”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches displaying the OSD in the claimed first region (see the rationale of claim 12(c)). It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of outputting an OSD in a second region of the partial region are mute. Claim 13 recites displaying the OSD menu in both the first and second region which cannot be applicable since claim 12 is selected to only display the OSD menu in the first region. Thus, the limitation of 13 is mute.
RE claim 14, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches:
(a)
based on the content and the OSD menu being simultaneously output in the first region,
As taught in the rationale of claim 1(c) and in further view of Yabu, Fig. 3C illustrates the situation when STB (14) receives a user’s operation [0076]. As a result of the received user’s operation, OSD image (52) is superimposed on video (50) according to this operation (said simultaneous) [0076], where the location of video (50) can be associated with the claimed first region.
(b)
the controller is configured to scale an image signal corresponding to the content and the OSD menu based on a size of the partial region of the display region.
Jeong teaches the processor (140) can control the input according to the height of the display (110) to include multiple modes [0085]. The processor (140) can expand the display size of the video content to the maximum based on the task area size of the exposed display (110) [0086]. In further view of Yabu, Yabu teaches displaying the OSD and video content together [Fig. 3(c)]. Therefore, in the combined invention, Jeong adjusts what is being displayed based on exposed display (110), where the OSD and video content and being displayed.
The same motivation to combine as taught in the rationale of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
RE claim 15, claim 15 is dependent on claim 12. The language of claim 12 recites, “an on screen display (OSD) menu is output in at least one of the first and a second region of the partial region”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches displaying the OSD in the claimed first region (see the rationale of claim 12(c)). It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of outputting an OSD in a second region of the partial region are mute. Claim 15 recites the OSD menu being output in the second region which cannot be applicable since claim 12 is selected to only display the OSD menu in the first region. Thus, the limitation of claim 15 is mute.
RE claim 16, claim 16 is dependent on claim 12. The language of claim 12 recites, “an on screen display (OSD) menu is output in at least one of the first and a second region of the partial region”, which limits the claim to needing only one of the limitations. Therefore, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches displaying the OSD in the claimed first region (see the rationale of claim 12(c)). It should be noted that since only one limitation is required, the limitations of outputting an OSD in a second region of the partial region are mute. Claim 16 recites the OSD menu being output in the second region which cannot be applicable since claim 12 is selected to only display the OSD menu in the first region. Thus, the limitation of claim 16 is mute.
RE claim 18, claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 8 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 8 is applied.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al. (KR10-2020-0000293) in view of YABU (2016/0073047 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 respectively, and in further view of MILLER (2007/0136681 A1).
RE claim 7, in further view of Yabu, Yabu teaches receiving a user’s operation (said first control signal) to display an OSD image (52) superimposed on video (50) [0076]. However, Jeong in view of Yabu fails to disclose scrolling of the OSD menu.
Miller is made of record as teaching an OSD that allows a scrollable menu in response to a user input. Miller provides an OSD method/system that displays configuration menus in a visually simple manner [0018]. The menu items are logically organized into a menu tree structure having different menu levels. At each level, only a few menu items are displayed at once. The display scrolls to other menu items at the same level in response to user input [0018]. Miller teaches:
(a)
based on receiving of a second control signal in a state in which the OSD menu is currently output,
Fig. 1, television screen (1) displays a top-level menu (10) of the OSD [0020]. The top level menu icon (10) is displayed when the user presses an appropriate key on the control device (said first control signal) [0020]. The top-level menu icon (10) includes a number of arrows (15a-d), which indicate some of the user inputs allowed at this time, one being scrolling (said second control signal) [0020]. The OSD is intended to be displayed over images or programs being viewed [0027].
(b)
scrolling and outputting the OSD menu based on a moving path of the second control signal.
In response to the scrolling input (said second control signal), the OSD changes the menu item displayed on each face (12, 13, 14) of the wheel and brings new menu icons into view (said outputting the OSD menu based on a moving path of the second control signal) [0021].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ability to scroll the OSD of Jeong in view of Yabu as taught by Miller because the OSD of Miller provides only a few menu items at a time to avoid confusing and overwhelming the user. Displaying only a few menu items at a time also makes the menu icon relatively small in size to minimize the screen area obscured by the OSD [Miller: 0029].
RE claim 9, Jeong in view of Yabu teaches the limitation of claim 9 with the exception of disclosing a second menu of the OSD menu. However, Miller is made of record as teaching an OSD where the menu items are logically organized into a menu tree structure having different menu levels. At each level, only a few menu items are displayed at once. The display scrolls to other menu items at the same level in response to user input [0018]. Jeong in view of Yabu and in further view of Miller teaches:
(a)
based on receiving of an input signal of selecting a second menu of the OSD menu in a state in which the OSD menu is currently output,
In further view of Yabu, Yabu teaches displaying an OSD with video content (said OSD menu) (Fig. 3(c), [0074, 0076]). As modified by Miller, the top-level menu icon (10) (said OSD menu) includes a number of arrows (15a-d), which indicate some of the user inputs allowed at this time [0020]. When the user activates the currently selects menu item (position 13) of the top-level menu (10) with an activation input, the OSD changes to a different display based on the menu tree structure [0023]. If the activated menu item corresponds to several next level menu items, a next-level (second-level) menu icon (20) is displayed (said selecting a second menu) [Figs. 4A, 4B, 0023].
(b)
controlling a motor to expose an entire region of the display region; and
Jeong teaches the actuator (130) is installed inside the housing and it can be implemented in order to move the display (110) to top and bottom about the housing (10) [0048]. The processor (140) can determine the screen size exposed (110) [0053].
outputting content corresponding to the second menu in the entire region.
Jeong further teaches a user instruction for controlling the height of the display (110) [0112]. As can be seen in Fig. 9b of Jeong, content is displayed on the entire region of the newly sized display. Thus, in the modified invention, the second menu of Miller could correspond to a user instruction for increasing the size of the display.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the additional menus of the OSD of Jeong in view of Yabu as taught by Miller because the OSD of Miller provides only a few menu items at a time to avoid confusing and overwhelming the user. Displaying only a few menu items at a time also makes the menu icon relatively small in size to minimize the screen area obscured by the OSD [Miller: 0029].
RE claim 10, in further view of Yabu, Yabu teaches receiving a user’s operation (said first control signal) to display an OSD image (52) superimposed on video (50) [0076]. However, Jeong in view of Yabu fails to disclose displaying a third menu of the OSD menu.
Miller is made of record as teaching an OSD that allows a scrollable menu in response to a user input. Miller provides an OSD method/system that displays configuration menus in a visually simple manner [0018]. The menu items are logically organized into a menu tree structure having different menu levels. At each level, only a few menu items are displayed at once. The display scrolls to other menu items at the same level in response to user input [0018]. Miller teaches:
(a)
in a state in which the OSD menu is currently output in the first region,
Fig. 1, television screen (1) displays a top-level menu (10) of the OSD [0020]. The top level menu icon (10) is displayed when the user presses an appropriate key on the control device (said in a state in which the OSD menu is currently output in the first region) [0020]. The OSD is intended to be displayed over images or programs being viewed (said first region) [0027].
recognizing a focus for a third menu of the OSD menu; and
The top-level menu icon (10) includes a number of arrows (15a-d), which indicate some of the user inputs allowed at this time [0020]. When the user activates the currently selects menu item (position 13) of the top-level menu (10) with an activation input, the OSD changes to a different display based on the menu tree structure [0023]. If the activated menu item corresponds to several next level menu items, a next-level (second-level) menu icon (20) is displayed [Figs. 4A, 4B, 0023]. If the activated menu item (said focus for a third menu) represents one or more configuration parameters to be adjusted (i.e., a leaf in the menu tree), the OSD presents an input display to prompt the user to enter or change the values of the parameter(s) [0024]. This can be displayed as a bar (30) [Fig. 5].
(c)
enlarging and outputting the third menu in the second region based on the focus.
If the activated menu item (said focus for a third menu) represents one or more configuration parameters to be adjusted (i.e., a leaf in the menu tree), the OSD presents an input display to prompt the user to enter or change the values of the parameter(s) [0024]. This can be displayed as a bar (30) (said enlarging and outputting third menu) [Fig. 5]. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the bar (30) is located in a different region than the OSD of Fig. 4B (said second region).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the additional menus of the OSD of Jeong in view of Yabu as taught by Miller because the OSD of Miller provides only a few menu items at a time to avoid confusing and overwhelming the user. Displaying only a few menu items at a time also makes the menu icon relatively small in size to minimize the screen area obscured by the OSD [Miller: 0029].
RE claim 17, claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 7 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 7 is applied.
RE claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 9 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 9 is applied.
RE claim 20, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 10 but in system form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 10 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE L SAMS:
direct telephone number:
(571) 272-7661
email:
michelle.sams@uspto.gov
The examiner is currently part time and can be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30am-9:30am.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Kee M. Tung can be reached on (571)272-7794. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHELLE L SAMS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
24 February 2026