DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 3/27/2026, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 15-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 3/27/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Venkataraman in view of Meisser
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser).
As per claim 1, Venkataraman teaches an information processing method performed by an information processing system, the information processing method comprising:
controlling, on a basis of a selection status of a video by a user viewing a plurality of surgical videos using a reception device, the plurality of surgical videos including a video captured in a surgical operation room, and a status of a communication line, quality of each of a plurality of the surgical videos(“Recorded videos of medical procedures such as surgeries contain highly valuable and rich information for medical education and training, assessing and analyzing the quality of the surgeries and skills of the surgeons, and for improving the outcomes of the surgeries and skills of the surgeons. There are many surgical procedures that involve displaying and capturing video images of the surgical procedures. For example, almost all minimally invasive procedures, such as endoscopy, laparoscopy, and arthroscopy, involve using video cameras and video images to assist the surgeons.” in Para.[0038], “a user/operator 140, such as a surgeon or other operator, may use the user console 120 to remotely manipulate the robotic arms 112 and/or surgical instruments (e.g., teleoperation). User console 120 may be located in the same operating room as robotic surgical system 100, as shown in FIG. 1. In other environments, user console 120 may be located in an adjacent or nearby room, or teleoperated from a remote location in a different building, city, or country. User console 120 may comprise a seat 132, foot-operated controls 134, one or more handheld user interface devices (UIDs) 136, and at least one user display 138 configured to display, for example, a view of the surgical site inside a patient.” in Para.[0045], “the disclosed visualization system for displaying high-resolution endoscopy videos on display devices with lower-resolution screens can be implemented on control tower 130 to control the display of the captured endoscopy videos from robotic surgical platform 116 on user display 138, which may have a lower resolution than the captured endoscopy videos” in Para.[0049], Fig.1); and
transmitting the surgical videos the quality of which has been controlled to the reception device via an information processing server on a network(“Robotic surgical system 100 can provide video output to one or more displays, including displays within the operating room as well as remote displays accessible via the Internet or other networks. The video output or feed may also be encrypted to ensure privacy and all or portions of the video output may be saved to a server or electronic healthcare record system.” in Para.[0048], “bus 702 also couples computer system 700 to a network (not shown) through a network interface 716. In this manner, the computer can be a part of a network of computers (such as a local area network (“LAN”), a wide area network (“WAN”), an intranet, or a network of networks, such as the Internet” in Para.[0092]).
Venkataraman is silent about quality of each of a plurality of the surgical videos by reducing a resolution or a frame rate of a surgical video in anon-selected status to a quality lower than a quality of a surgical video in a selected status according to the status of the communication line to maintain a real- time property of the surgical video in the selected status within a bandwidth indicated by the status of the communication line.
Meisser teaches quality of each of a plurality of the surgical videos by reducing a resolution or a frame rate of a surgical video in anon-selected status to a quality lower than a quality of a surgical video in a selected status according to the status of the communication line to maintain a real- time property of the surgical video in the selected status within a bandwidth indicated by the status of the communication line(“a video conferencing system and related methods of using the video conferencing system described herein. The embodiments of the video conferencing system and related methods disclosed herein improves the experience for the users of a video conferencing system by offering users at a first location updated selections of multiple views of a corresponding second location of the video conference without consuming an excessive amount of bandwidth and allowing the users to control the video conference information received at their location. For example, each video conference location can transmit a high quality video stream of a selected view (e.g., a view of the current speaker) of that video conferencing environment that can be used as the primary means of communication for the video conference. Additionally, each video conference location can also transmit preview images (e.g., thumbnails) of non-selected views (e.g., users that are not currently speaking or other portions of the given video conference environment, such as a whiteboard) of that video conference environment. In some embodiments, these preview images of the non-selected views are of reduced quality and/or a reduced frame rate relative to the high quality video stream of the selected view, allowing for the exchange of these images between the different video conferencing locations to consume significantly less bandwidth relative to a conventional video conferencing system that exchanges high quality video data streams of multiple views at each video conferencing location. Despite this reduced bandwidth, functionality is not sacrificed because the users at a given video conferencing location have access to updated images that allow them to select the view of their choice at any time during the video conference. Furthermore, the reduced bandwidth for exchanging the non-selected views allows the video conferencing system to selectively deliver a single high quality video data stream that is used as the primary means of communication for the video conference based on input from a user, and thus reduces the need for a more complex video conferencing system and/or data transmission infrastructure found in conventional video conferencing systems. Thus, the embodiments of video conferencing systems disclosed herein enhance functionality without sacrificing quality. Although the embodiments described herein are generally described as receiving, at each video conferencing location, a single high quality video data stream that is used as the primary means of communication for the video conference, in some embodiments two or more high quality video data streams can be received at each video conferencing location in addition to the preview images (e.g., thumbnails) of non-selected views” in Col. 3 lines 51-67 and Col. 4 lines 1-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman with the above teachings of Meisser in order to improve user’s viewing experience.
As per claim 2, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches further comprising reducing quality of the surgical video other than the surgical video selected by the user(“For example, the disclosed visualization system may begin to show the endoscope video in full-image-view mode to provide the user with an overview of the anatomy and tool placement/status at a reduced resolution.” in Para.[0057]).
As per claim 3, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches further comprising reducing quality of the surgical video by cutting out a region selected by the user(“the disclosed visualization system first selects a region of interest (ROI) 210 of 1920p×1080p in resolution/size from the original 2560p×2160p image 200, and subsequently extracts and displays the selected ROI 210 on display 202. As shown in FIG. 2B, because the extracted ROI 210 (shown by a dashed rectangular box overlapping the display border of display 202) is identical in size to the display resolution, when displaying ROI 210 on display 202, ROI 210 takes up the entire 1920p×1080p display area without leaving any blank space. Note that this display technique separates high-resolution video image 200 into an on-screen/visible region, i.e., ROI 210 and an off-screen/non-visible region 212 outside of ROI 210. Off-screen region 212, which surrounds ROI 210, is intentionally grayed out to indicate that it is not visible to a user when ROI 210 is being displayed. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2B, ROI 210 is selected and extracted from substantially the center region of the original video image 200. In other embodiments, ROI 210 can be selected so that it is centered on a tip of a surgical tool captured in video image 200, such as tool tip 214” in Para.[0053]).
As per claim 5, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled by changing at least one of resolution and a frame rate(“the disclosed visualization system first selects a region of interest (ROI) 210 of 1920p×1080p in resolution/size from the original 2560p×2160p image 200” in Para.[0053]).
As per claim 11, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches further comprising acquiring information indicating a selection status of the surgical video by the user, the information being transmitted from the reception device(“the disclosed visualization system may begin to show the endoscope video in full-image-view mode to provide the user with an overview of the anatomy and tool placement/status at a reduced resolution. This display mode also allows the user to view surgical-procedure-related information displayed in the border regions (e.g., borders 206 and 208) on the screen.” in Para.[0057]).
As per claim 12, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches further comprising acquiring a status of a communication line between a medical facility in which the surgical operation room is located and the information processing server that distributes the surgical video uploaded from the medical facility, and a status of a communication line between the information processing server and the reception device (“the communication between robotic surgical platform 116 and user console 120 may be through control tower 130, which may translate user commands from the user console 120 to robotic control commands and transmit them to robotic surgical platform 116. Control tower 130 may also transmit status and feedback from robotic surgical platform 116 back to user console 120. The connections between robotic surgical platform 116, user console 120 and control tower 130 can be via wired and/or wireless connections, and can be proprietary and/or performed using any of a variety of data communication protocols. Any wired connections may be optionally built into the floor and/or walls or ceiling of the operating room. Robotic surgical system 100 can provide video output to one or more displays, including displays within the operating room as well as remote displays accessible via the Internet or other networks. The video output or feed may also be encrypted to ensure privacy and all or portions of the video output may be saved to a server or electronic healthcare record system” in Para.[0048]).
As per claim 13, the limitations in the claim 13 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, Venkataraman teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute processing comprising:(“uch non-transitory computer-readable or processor-readable storage media may include RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that may be used to store desired program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that may be accessed by a computer” in Para.[0095]) and the other limitations in the claim 13 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches wherein the status of the communication line includes a transmission rate of a communication line between the medical facility and the information processing server(Para.[0048]).
As per claim 18, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman teaches wherein the status of the communication line includes a transmission rate of a communication line between the information processing server and the reception device(Para.[0048]).
As per claim 19, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 13.
Venkataraman teaches wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled by changing at least one of resolution and a frame rate(“the disclosed visualization system for displaying high-resolution endoscopy videos on display devices with lower-resolution screens can be implemented on control tower 130 to control the display of the captured endoscopy videos from robotic surgical platform 116 on user display 138, which may have a lower resolution than the captured endoscopy videos” in Para.[0049]).
As per claim 20, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 13.
Venkataraman teaches further comprising analyzing content of the surgical video, wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled according to an analysis result of the content of the surgical video(Para.[0038]).
Venkataraman in view of Meisser and Swaminathan
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser) further in view of Swaminathan et al.(USPubN 2018/0160160; hereinafter Swaminathan).
As per claim 4, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled such that, on a basis of priority set according to selection by the user, the surgical video the priority of which is high has a higher quality than the surgical video the priority of which is low.
Swaminathan teaches wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled such that, on a basis of priority set according to selection by the user, the surgical video the priority of which is high has a higher quality than the surgical video the priority of which is low(“the adaptive rate allocation system determines which segments to stream at a higher video quality (e.g., a higher bit rate) based on the segment's assigned priority. As described further below, the adaptive rate allocation system assigns priority to segments based on where a user is looking (i.e., viewport) and where the user is likely to look next. For instance, the adaptive rate allocation system streams segments with the highest assigned priority at the highest bit rate when enough additional bandwidth is available such that the user's current view is presented to the user at the highest video quality. Likewise, the adaptive rate allocation system can stream other segments with other assigned priorities at various bit rate levels (which correspond to video quality levels) based on the amount of available additional bandwidth. In this manner, the adaptive rate allocation system determines how to stream the highest quality video possible while maximizing bandwidth efficiency” in Para.[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Swaminathan in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
As per claim 6, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled by not transmitting the surgical video other than a certain number of the surgical videos having a high priority set according to selection by the user.
Swaminathan teaches wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled by not transmitting the surgical video other than a certain number of the surgical videos having a high priority set according to selection by the user (“the adaptive rate allocation system determines which segments to stream at a higher video quality (e.g., a higher bit rate) based on the segment's assigned priority. As described further below, the adaptive rate allocation system assigns priority to segments based on where a user is looking (i.e., viewport) and where the user is likely to look next. For instance, the adaptive rate allocation system streams segments with the highest assigned priority at the highest bit rate when enough additional bandwidth is available such that the user's current view is presented to the user at the highest video quality. Likewise, the adaptive rate allocation system can stream other segments with other assigned priorities at various bit rate levels (which correspond to video quality levels) based on the amount of available additional bandwidth. In this manner, the adaptive rate allocation system determines how to stream the highest quality video possible while maximizing bandwidth efficiency” in Para.[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Swaminathan in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
Venkataraman in view of Meisser and Saggi
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser) further in view of Saggi et al.(USPubN 2020/0372066; hereinafter Saggi).
As per claim 7, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about wherein quality of a plurality of the surgical videos is controlled by combining a certain number of the surgical videos having a high priority set according to selection by the user into a single video.
Saggi teaches wherein quality of a plurality of the surgical videos is controlled by combining a certain number of the surgical videos having a high priority set according to selection by the user into a single video(“1) accepting an input from a user, the input designating at least one video and including at least one n value (e.g., as described later herein); 2) processing the at least one video to categorize one or more elements (e.g., speech visuals, etc.) of the video; 3) extracting one or more items (e.g., text, visuals, audio, etc.) from the at least one video; 4) dividing the at least one video into one or more segments; 5) calculating an importance metric for each of the one or more segments; 6) ranking the one or more segments based on the importance metric of each; 7) selecting a plurality of the one or more segments that were highly ranked; 8) generating titles and descriptions for the plurality of segments; 9) combining the titles, descriptions, and plurality of segments into a single video or a collection of key moments (e.g., the plurality of segments); and 10) providing the single video or collection of moments to users” in Para.[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Saggi in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
Venkataraman in view of Meisser, Schweid and Swaminathan
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser) further in view of Schweid et al.(USPubN 2015/0086947; hereinafter Schweid) further in view of in view of Swaminathan et al.(USPubN 2018/0160160; hereinafter Swaminathan).
As per claim 8, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about further comprising setting priority of each of a plurality of the surgical videos on a basis of medical device information included in attribute information of each of the surgical videos, wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled on a basis of the priority.
Schweid teaches further comprising setting priority of each of a plurality of the surgical videos on a basis of medical device information included in attribute information of each of the surgical videos(“select at least a portion of a first video containing information regarding a medical condition; create a second video including a plurality of segments from the first video; transmit for display, on at least one first sensory user interface (SUI) device, the second video for viewing by qualified medical personnel; receive input from the qualified medical personnel; based on the input from the qualified medical personnel confirm suitability of a first segment from the first plurality of segments with respect conveying information regarding the medical condition or modify a second segment from the first plurality of segments to better convey information regarding the medical condition or identify a third segment from the first plurality of segments as being unsuitable for conveying information regarding the medical condition; create, to from the second video, a third video by at least including the first or second segment or deleting the third segment; transmit for display, on at least one second SUI device and for viewing by a plurality of viewers, the third video; receive from the at least one second SU device a respective response from each viewer in the plurality of viewers, each respective response identifying a respective fourth segment of the third video deemed relevant to the medical condition by said each viewer or deemed enjoyable to view by said each viewer; test comprehension of the plurality of viewers with respect to the third video; assign a respective first ranking to each respective fourth segment in the third video according to a respective level of tested comprehension for said each viewer; create a fourth video, including only at least a portion of respective fourth segments having respective first rankings greater than a first threshold value; and store, in the at least one memory element, the fourth video for inclusion in a video presentation regarding the medical condition” in Para.[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Schweid in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
Swaminathan teaches wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled on a basis of the priority(“the adaptive rate allocation system determines which segments to stream at a higher video quality (e.g., a higher bit rate) based on the segment's assigned priority. As described further below, the adaptive rate allocation system assigns priority to segments based on where a user is looking (i.e., viewport) and where the user is likely to look next. For instance, the adaptive rate allocation system streams segments with the highest assigned priority at the highest bit rate when enough additional bandwidth is available such that the user's current view is presented to the user at the highest video quality. Likewise, the adaptive rate allocation system can stream other segments with other assigned priorities at various bit rate levels (which correspond to video quality levels) based on the amount of available additional bandwidth. In this manner, the adaptive rate allocation system determines how to stream the highest quality video possible while maximizing bandwidth efficiency” in Para.[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman, Meisser and Schweid with the above teachings of Swaminathan in order to improve user experience with multimedia.
Venkataraman in view of Meisser and Mahadik
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser) further in view of Mahadik et al.(USPubN 2018/0271615; hereinafter Mahadik).
As per claim 9, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about further comprising analyzing content of the surgical video, wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled according to an analysis result of the content of the surgical video.
Mahadik teaches further comprising analyzing content of the surgical video, wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled according to an analysis result of the content of the surgical video(“controlling a surgical system to provide an improved image of a surgical site comprising manipulating tissue at the surgical site, illuminating the surgical site, obtaining video images at the surgical site, analyzing the video images to determine the presence of a condition that interferes with a quality of the video images, configuring a system controller to interact with a video enhancer, in response to the presence of the condition and without control from an operator, controlling the video enhancer with the system controller to generate video images having an improved image quality, and displaying the video images having the improved image quality” in Para.[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Mahadik in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
As per claim 10, Venkataraman, Meisser and Mahadik teach all of limitation of claim 9.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled on a basis of the analysis result of the content of the surgical video and the status of the communication line.
Mahadik teaches wherein quality of the surgical video is controlled on a basis of the analysis result of the content of the surgical video and the status of the communication line (“controlling a surgical system to provide an improved image of a surgical site comprising manipulating tissue at the surgical site, illuminating the surgical site, obtaining video images at the surgical site, analyzing the video images to determine the presence of a condition that interferes with a quality of the video images, configuring a system controller to interact with a video enhancer, in response to the presence of the condition and without control from an operator, controlling the video enhancer with the system controller to generate video images having an improved image quality, and displaying the video images having the improved image quality” in Para.[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Mahadik in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
Venkataraman in view of Meisser and Hensler
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser) further in view of Hensler et al.(USPubN 2018/0146121; hereinafter Hensler).
As per claim 15, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about wherein the quality of the surgical video is controlled by blurring a region other than a rectangular region selected by the user.
Hensler teaches wherein the quality of the surgical video is controlled by blurring a region other than a rectangular region selected by the user(Para.[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Hensler in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
Venkataraman in view of Meisser and Kaneki
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al.(USPubN 2020/0304753; hereinafter Venkataraman) in view of Meisser et al.(USPN 9,798,933; hereinafter Meisser) further in view of Kaneki(USPubN 2007/0195045).
As per claim 16, Venkataraman and Meisser teach all of limitation of claim 1.
Venkataraman and Meisser are silent about wherein the quality of the surgical video is controlled by switching a scanning method of the surgical video.
Kaneki teaches wherein the quality of the surgical video is controlled by switching a scanning method of the surgical video (Para.[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Venkataraman and Meisser with the above teachings of Kaneki in order to improve the efficiency of transmitting and streaming a spherical video to a client device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 pm.
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, THAI Q TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7382. 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.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights