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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1 - 4 have been amended. Accordingly, Claims 1 - 4 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and presented arguments have overcome the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 16, 2025. Accordingly, the objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 – 14, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 - 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiss et al. (US 2015/0163478 A1) in view of Fyke et al. (US 2020/0273259) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, Applicant’s amendments to the claims and presented arguments, see pages 4 - 14 with respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiss, in view of Fyke, in view of Burns et al. (2013/0258129 A1), and further in view of Hardison (US 2018/0192031 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 4 has been withdrawn. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below:
Applicant argues on page 9 that “Geiss discloses a system with three or more cameras on the same surface, providing multiple baselines from which the system dynamically selects a camera pair depending on object distance, focus settings or scene orientation. Geiss's primary objective is to compute depth information by algorithmically selecting an optimal baseline from multiple possible camera pairs, not to provide a fixed stereoscopic capture system.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fixed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require “instantly and simultaneously capture two images of a same object through one of the pairs of lenses on the 3D stereoscopic smartphone device”. Similarly, as described by Geiss in the Abstract, two pairs of image-capture devices from the three or more image-capture devices are operable for stereoscopic imaging, in Par. [0022] To capture a stereo image pair, two cameras that are offset from one another and oriented in substantially the same direction may be used to simultaneously capture image data of the same scene from different perspectives and further in Par. [0075] the device may then operate the selected camera pair to capture stereo image data of the scene. Geiss further describes 3D stereoscopic imaging in Par. [0022] Stereo image data may be processed in order to produce one or more human-viewable stereo images, which may each be referred to herein as a "viewable stereoscopic image" or "3D image.". Accordingly, Geiss in view of FYKE teaches the amended limitations as claimed.
Applicant further argues on pages 9 and 10 that “Moreover, the claim 1 of the present invention requires that the image sensors in each pair are arranged orthogonally (at 90°) relative to each other. This structural relationship is nowhere disclosed or suggested in Geiss” and “Geiss never teaches or motivates a 90° sensor orientation for stereoscopic capture”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Geiss clearly illustrates on Fig. 1C the structural relations of the cameras and further describes in Par. [0038] the arrangement in FIG. 1C includes one camera 144A to 144D in each corner of the device 140. Geiss further illustrates in Fig. 1B several camera pairs that are position 90° or right angles to each other and describes such structural arrangement in Par. [0036] The lenses of rear-facing cameras 112A and 112B are arranged on the upper corner on the back of digital camera device 100, while the lens of camera 112C is arranged on the lower corner on the back of device 100. Geiss even further illustrates in Fig. 1E several more camera pairs that are position 90° or right angles to each other and describes such structural arrangement in Par. [0040] the nine cameras 182A to 182F are placed on the back of the mobile device 180 along two axes 184X and 184Y). As similarity shown in the application (see Fig. 2) to the pairs of optical lenses (or optical sensors) (7) and (8) and as would be expected by a person skilled in the art, the camera pair 122A and 144C of Geiss are at 90° angle to camera pair 122C and 122D, which is known as being orthogonally related or even further at right angles. In addition, Geiss teaches in Par. [0075] a multi-camera device, such those shown in FIGS. 1A to 1E, may use one of its cameras to perform an autofocus process to achieve proper focus for a scene. The device may then operate the selected camera pair to capture stereo image data of the scene. Accordingly, Geiss in view of FYKE teaches the amended limitations as claimed.
Applicant argues on page 10 that “The present invention also uniquely provides dual-sided stereoscopic imaging, i.e., a stereoscopic pair on the front side for portrait and landscape 3D imaging and another dedicated stereoscopic pair on the rear side. Geiss does not disclose any dual-sided stereoscopic arrangement. It focuses solely on multi-camera clusters arranged on a single surface of the device”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Geiss clearly teaches in Par. [0035] Referring to the cameras as front and rear facing is arbitrary, and digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras positioned on various sides (i.e. more than one surface) of body 102 and further in Par. [0041] Yet further, it should be understood that multi-camera arrangements may be implemented on other sides (i.e. more than one surface) of a digital camera device. Other variations on the multi-camera arrangements shown in the figures are also possible. Accordingly, Geiss teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant further argues on page 11 that “the present invention does not include dynamic selection of camera pairs, which is the core of Geiss. Instead, the present invention uses fixed paired lenses specifically spaced to create consistent stereoscopic images”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fixed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, it should be noted that the pair of lens are fixed on the body of the device. As illustrated in Figs. 1A-1E the cameras are fixedly positioned on the body of the device as described in Par. [0035] multiple cameras positioned on various sides of body 102. Accordingly, Geiss in view of FYKE teaches the amended limitations as claimed.
Applicant further argues on pages 11 and 12 that “Fyke merely states that its two cameras may be spaced approximately the same as the distance between human eyes (around 6.35 cm), while also expressly allowing the distance to be smaller or larger. This shows that Fyke treats 6.35 cm only as an optional, non-critical reference. On the contrary, the present invention requires that the stereoscopic smartphone includes a front pair of optical lenses arranged at an ideal, fixed distance of exactly 6.35 cm as explicitly described in the present invention that the device is designed to produce stereoscopic photos and videos by simulating the average distance of human eyes through a precisely set 6.35 cm spacing that ensures instantaneous and simultaneous capture with correct parallax for 3D viewing”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fixed distance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Geiss clearly teaches in Par. [0029], a camera pair with a standard baseline (e.g., similar to the typical interocular separation) may be selected. As would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, interocular is the distance between the pupils of the eyes, where the average interocular distance is known to be about 6.35 cm. However, since Geiss does not specifically teach distance of 6.35 cm. FYKE is relied upon for teaching this limitation in Par. [0029] The distance between the cameras may be approximately the same as the distance between a standard person's eyes (which is around 6.35 cm)). FYKE clearly describes the distance between the cameras as the distance between a standard person’s eye, about 6.35cm. While FYKE may provide an optional configuration for a smaller or larger distance between the cameras, FYKE clearly teaches the distance between the cameras is structurally designed to be the same as an person’s eye distance. It would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying the ideal distance between image sensors as taught by FYKE in the invention of Geiss in order to capture stereoscopic images (See FYKE, Par. [0029]). Furthermore, it should be noted that claim 2 recites “the distance between the pair of optical lenses vary more or less”, which is contrary to applicant’s arguments that the distance is fixed. Accordingly, Geiss in view of FYKE teaches the amended limitation as claimed.
Applicant argue on page 13 that “Burns merely teaches switching between two perpendicular pairs of imaging sensors based on device orientation, while the present invention requires a much more specific, coordinated imaging process involving instantaneous and simultaneous capture, format- dependent lens activation, and a fixed 6.35-cm stereoscopic spacing that produces a single fused 3D image. Burns never teaches or suggests (i) capturing two images at the same moment through a selected lens pair based on whether the object is in front or behind the device, (ii) using separate front-facing and rear-facing stereoscopic lens pairs for portrait and landscape formats, or (iii) joining the two images side-by-side at an exact 6.35-cm center-to-center spacing to generate a stereoscopic frame suitable for viewing using 3D glasses or a stereoscope. Burns focuses on orientation detection and selecting between horizontal and vertical sensor pairs, and does not describe any software logic for front rear object detection, portrait landscape format switching, or controlled stereoscopic image assembly”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As found in the Non-Final office action, the combination of Geiss, FYKE, Burns and Hardison was used to teach the previously recited Claim 4. Geiss in view of FYKE did not specifically teach portrait format and landscape format. Burns was relied upon for teaching this limitation according to the user's choice, which was previously recited (See Fig. 2 and Par. [0045]-[0046]). In addition, it should be noted that Burns further teaches the pair of sensors are arranged orthogonally (at 90°) relative to each other, see Par. [0037] the two pairs of imaging sensors can each be aligned along an axis. The two axes may be positioned with an approximately 90.degree. angle between them. In other words, the two axes are perpendicular or orthogonal to each other.
Applicant argue on page 13 that “Hardison merely discloses a VR viewing apparatus that relies on a smartphone's existing dual rear cameras to generate stereoscopic content, but it neither teaches nor suggests the structured capture-control mechanism, the specific multi-orientation dual-pair lens architecture, nor the mandatory 6.35 cm inter-lens distance that simulates human spacing as disclosed in the present invention.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As found in the Non-Final office action, the combination of Geiss, FYKE, Burns and Hardison was used to teach the previously recited Claim 4. Geiss in combination with FYKE and Burns did not specifically teach two images mounted side by side horizontally. Hardison was relied upon for teaching this limitation in Par. [0028]-[0031].
Claim Objections
In Claim 1, it recites “A stereoscopic smartphone cell phone”, “a corresponding key on screen or on the of the device…” , “the pair of lenses is have a camera attached…”, “equipped with a first pair of optical lenses equipped with of image sensors” and “equipped with a real pair of image sensors that are coupled to the rear of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device”. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean “A three-dimensional (3D) stereoscopic smartphone cell phone”, “a corresponding key on screen or on [[the of]] the device…”, “the pair of lenses is have a camera attached…” to mean ““the pair of lenses [[is]] have a camera attached…”, “equipped with a first pair of optical lenses equipped with [[of]] image sensors” and “equipped with a [[real]] rear pair of image sensors that are coupled to the rear of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device”, as these appears to be typographical errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiss et al. (US 2015/0163478 A1) referred to as Geiss hereinafter, in view of FYKE et al., (US 2020/0273259 A1) referred to as FYKE hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Geiss teaches a stereoscopic (FIG. 1E, Title, Selecting Camera Pairs For Stereoscopic Imaging, Abstract, two pairs of image-capture devices from the three or more image-capture devices are operable for stereoscopic imaging, Par. [0006], a device, such as a mobile phone, which includes three or more camera systems, Par. [0041], multi-camera arrangements may include more or fewer cameras than those shown in FIGS. 1A to 1E, Par. [0063] Captured digital images may be represented as a one-dimensional, two-dimensional, or multi-dimensional array of pixels) smartphone cell phone is a smartphone-type cell phone device (Fig. 2, Par. [0049], computing device 200 may be a cellular mobile telephone (e.g., a smartphone)), wherein the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device comprises:
a pair of optical lenses on its front face and back face (Par. [0023] three or more camera systems (e.g., three or more lenses that are part of a single camera, or three or more separate cameras). Par. [0037] the lenses of three or more cameras, which are all oriented in substantially the same direction, may be arranged in different formations on a surface of the phone, Fig. 1A, Par. [0035], Digital camera device 100 may include a front-facing camera 104 (i.e. front face camera). Digital camera device 100 could further include three rear-facing cameras 112A to 112C (i.e. back face cameras). Front-facing camera 104 may be positioned on a side of body 102 typically facing a user while in operation. Rear-facing cameras 112A to 112C may be positioned on a side of body 102 opposite front-facing camera 104. Referring to the cameras as front and rear facing is arbitrary, and digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras (i.e. pair of optical lenses) positioned on various sides (i.e. front and back) of body 102),
a corresponding key on screen or on the of the device (Par. [0035], Digital camera device 100 may include various elements, such as a body 102, a front-facing camera 104, a multi-element display 106, a shutter button 108, and other buttons 110, Par. [0042], Multi-element display 106 may also support touchscreen and/or presence-sensitive functions (i.e. key on screen) that may be able to adjust the settings and/or configuration of any aspect of digital camera device 100),
a first button on the screen or on the side of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device (Par. [0035], Digital camera device 100 may include various elements, such as a body 102, a front-facing camera 104, a multi-element display 106, a shutter button 108 (i.e. button on the side of device), and other buttons 110) and a second button on the screen or on the side of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device (Par. [0035], Digital camera device 100 may include various elements, such as a body 102, a front-facing camera 104, a multi-element display 106, a shutter button 108, and other buttons 110 (i.e. button on the side of device)),
wherein the pair of optical lenses is have a camera attached to the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device (Par. [0006] a device, such as s mobile phone, which includes three or more camera systems. Par. [0023] three or more camera systems (e.g., three or more lenses that are part of a single camera, or three or more separate cameras)), equipped with a first pair of optical lenses equipped with of image sensors (Par. [0035], digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras (i.e. pair) positioned on various sides of body 102, Par. [0041] It is contemplated that other multi-camera arrangements may include more or fewer cameras than those shown in FIGS. 1A to 1E. It should be understood that multi-camera arrangements may be implemented on other sides of a digital camera device) attached to the front of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device (Par. [0035] Referring to the cameras as front and rear facing is arbitrary, and digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras (i.e. pair of optical lenses) positioned on various sides (i.e. front and back) of body 102. Par. [0043] Front-facing camera 104 may include an image sensor and associated optical elements such as lenses.) at an ideal distance from each other (Par. [0006], different pairs of the cameras may provide different baselines (i.e., different distances (i.e. ideal distance) between the lenses of the camera pairs). Par. [0029], multi-camera systems may dynamically select a camera pair with a baseline that facilitates obtaining depth information at the general distance range of the scene. For example, a camera pair with a standard baseline (e.g., similar to the typical interocular separation) (i.e. as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, interocular is the distance between the pupils of the eyes, where the average interocular distance is about 6.35 cm) may be selected for subjects at an intermediate distance range),
wherein the image sensors are arranged at 90° to each other (As illustrated in Fig. 1A, cameras pair 112A and 112B are arranged at 90° to camera pair 112A and 112C, As illustrated in Fig. 1B, cameras pair 122A and 122C are arranged at 90° to camera pair 122C and 122C, As illustrated in Fig. 1C, for example, cameras pair 144A and 144B are arranged at 90° to camera pair 144A and 144C, As illustrated in Fig. E, for example, rear view cameras pair 182A and 182E are arranged at 90° to camera pair 182E and 182I, Par. [0038], the arrangement in FIG. 1C includes one camera 144A to 144D in each corner (i.e. illustrated at 90° to each other) of the device 140, Par. [0040], and In FIG. 1E, the nine cameras 182A to 182F are placed on the back of the mobile device 180 along two axes 184X and 184Y (i.e. illustrated at 90° to each other)), and equipped with a real pair of image sensors (Par. [0035], digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras (i.e. pair or sensors) positioned on various sides of body 102, Digital camera device 100 could further include three rear-facing cameras 112A to 112C (i.e. rear pair of sensors). Rear-facing cameras 112A to 112C (i.e. rear pair of sensors) may be positioned on a side of body 102. Referring to the cameras as front and rear facing is arbitrary, and digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras (i.e. pair of lenses/sensors) positioned on various sides (i.e. front and back) of body 102. Par. [0041] It is contemplated that other multi-camera arrangements may include more or fewer cameras than those shown in FIGS. 1A to 1E. It should be understood that multi-camera arrangements may be implemented on other sides of a digital camera device.) that are coupled to the rear of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device (Par. [0035], Digital camera device 100 could further include three rear-facing cameras 112A to 112C. Rear-facing cameras 112A to 112C may be positioned on a side of body 102 opposite front-facing camera 104) and arranged at a distance from each other equivalent to human eyes (Par. [0006], different pairs of the cameras may provide different baselines (i.e., different distances between the lenses of the camera pairs). Par. [0029], multi-camera systems may dynamically select a camera pair with a baseline that facilitates obtaining depth information at the general distance range of the scene. For example, a camera pair with a standard baseline (e.g., similar to the typical interocular separation) (i.e. interocular is defined as a physical distance between the human eyes) may be selected for subjects at an intermediate distance range), with the image sensors are arranged at 90° to each other (Fig. 1C, Par. [0038], the arrangement in FIG. 1C includes one camera 144A to 144D in each corner (i.e. illustrated at 90° to each other) of the device 140, Par. [0040], and In FIG. 1E, the nine cameras 182A to 182F (i.e. cameras 182A – 182D and at 90° to cameras 182F-182I)) are placed on the back of the mobile device 180 along two axes 184X and 184Y (i.e. illustrated at 90° to each other)).
Geiss does not specifically teach distance of 6.35 cm. Therefore, Geiss fails to explicitly teach image sensors arranged at an ideal distance of 6.35 cm from each other.
However, FYKE teaches image sensors at an ideal distance of 6.35 cm from each other (Par. [0029] The distance between the cameras may be approximately the same as the distance between a standard person's eyes (which is around 6.35 cm)).
References Geiss and FYKE are considered to be analogous art because they relate to smartphone imaging devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying the ideal distance between image sensors as taught by FYKE in the invention of Geiss in order to capture stereoscopic images (See FYKE, Par. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 2, Geiss in view of FYKE teaches Claim 1. Geiss further teaches wherein the distance between the pair of optical lenses vary more or less (Par. [0024] to produce a viewable stereoscopic image that replicates what the human eyes would see if at the scene, a baseline between 50 mm and 80 mm is typically used), which compromise the final result obtained (Par. [0024], However, if the intended subject of a viewable stereoscopic image is distant, then using such a baseline will typically cause the object to appear flat when the stereoscopic image data is combined to produce a viewable stereoscopic image (i.e. compromise the final result). Similarly, if the intended subject is very close to the lenses (e.g., 1-2 inches away), then a "standard" baseline between 50 mm and 80 mm may result in a viewable stereoscopic image with undesirable parallax (i.e. compromise the final result)). FYKE further teaches the distance between the pair of optical lenses vary more or less (Par. [0029], the distance between the cameras may be smaller or larger than the distance between a person's eyes).
Regarding Claim 3, Geiss in view of FYKE teaches Claim 1. Geiss further teaches wherein the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device are equipped with multiple pairs of optical lenses equipped with image sensors (Fig. 1E, Par [0040] In another variation, FIG. 1E shows an arrangement with nine cameras 182A to 182I facing in the same direction. In FIG. 1E, the nine cameras 182A to 182F are placed on the back of the mobile device 180 along two axes 184X and 184Y. Accordingly, different pairs of cameras (i.e. multiple pairs) may be selected from cameras 182A to 182F to provide a number of different baselines along the two axes 184X and 184Y), on the front and back faces of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device (Par. [0035], Referring to the cameras as front and rear facing is arbitrary, and digital camera device 100 may include multiple cameras positioned on various sides (i.e. front and back) of body 102. Par. [0041] It is contemplated that other multi-camera arrangements may include more or fewer cameras than those shown in FIGS. 1A to 1E. It should be understood that multi-camera arrangements may be implemented on other sides (i.e. front and back) of a digital camera device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 specifically defines “the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device instantly and simultaneously capture two images of a same object through one of the pairs of lenses on the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device for photos or filming to obtain instantaneous frontal stereoscopic images, with object positioned in the front of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone, in a portrait format, using the first pair of lenses and in a landscape format, using the second pair of lenses, wherein for photos or films with the object positioned on the back of the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device, wherein the pair of optical lenses gets activated for photos or films in portrait format and the pair of optical lenses for photos or films in landscape format, wherein the images produced by each optical lens or image sensor, are joined side by side on the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device horizontally at an ideal distance of 6.35 cm between their centers and form a single stereoscopic photographic image or a single frame of stereoscopic film will be formed, wherein when the image is captured by the pairs of lenses, the image captured by a left optical lens or a left image sensor is positioned on the left side of a final image and the image captured by the a right optical lens or a right image sensor be positioned on a right side of the final image, and the image is captured by the pairs of lenses, captures the instantaneous frontal stereoscopic images by placing the optical lens or left image sensor on the right side of the final image and the image captured by the right optical lens or the image sensor is positioned on the left side of the final image, and are recorded on the stereoscopic smartphone cell phone device or an external media”, which is not readily taught or suggested by the prior art uncovered during search or made of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. 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.
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425