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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to application filed 08/21/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOONEY et al. (US 20240164636 A1) (MOONEY) in view of Wahl et al. (US 20240268660 A1) (Wahl).
Re claims 1 and 12:
[Claim 1] MOONEY teaches or at least suggests a method for evaluating visual processing speed using moving optotypes in a virtual reality (VR) environment (at least ¶ 2: methods for dynamically assessing a visual function of a subject; ¶ 3: A visual stimulus is “visible” to an observer, in an absolute sense, when the observer can become conscious of its distinguishing visual features … Visual stimuli may be nested within one another: a pre-rendered video can be considered a single visual stimulus, as can a single character, object, or other local feature the video depicts), the method comprising: displaying a VR environment on screens of a VR headset worn by a patient (at least ¶ 67: present invention may be practiced using a device such as a tablet, a laptop, a mobile phone, a virtual-reality or augmented-reality display device, or a monitor attached to a desktop computer. The eye tracker used to measure the participant's gaze response may be a head-mounted eye tracker, such as the Tobii Pro Glasses, a display-mounted eye tracker).
MOONEY further teaches or at least suggests comparing one or more of the first movement, the first reaction time, the second movement, and the second reaction time to a database (at least ¶ 70: Target tracking events may be detected by analyzing gaze position over a sliding time window of gaze samples (e.g. 0.15 seconds) each time a new gaze sample arrives, and comparing it to the position of a given target over the same time window …; ¶ 96: compare the recent trajectories of the stimulus and the observer's gaze to detect tracking …; ¶ 128: calculate a set of trajectory-match scores by comparing the gaze position signal to the position of each stimulus over a time window; ¶ 140: calculate an evidence-of-visibility score by comparing the gaze position and eye position of one or both eyes of the person during the first period of time to the position on the display of the first visual stimulus during the first period of time).
MOONEY appears to be silent on but Wahl teaches or at least suggests identifying an initial position of a patient's eyes; displaying an optotype in the VR environment at a first position; tracking a first movement of the patient's eyes as the patient's eye moves from the initial position to the first position; identifying a first reaction time; removing the optotype from the first position; displaying the optotype in the VR environment at a second position; tracking a second movement of the patient's eyes as the patient's eye moves from the first position to the second position; identifying a second reaction time; and comparing one or more of the first movement, the first reaction time, the second movement, and the second reaction time to a database (at least ¶¶ 16-22: determining at least one visual performance of at least one eye of a person wherein an attention level of the person is determined by evaluating a time-related difference in reaction times between at least one particular measurement cycle and at least one subsequent measurement cycle; determining at least one visual performance of at least one eye of a person, wherein the method comprises at least the following steps: a) displaying on a screen to the at least one eye of a person at least one visual fixation mark configured to attract a visual perception of the person by directing a line of sight of the at least one eye of the person towards the visual fixation mark; b) subsequently displaying on a screen to the at least one eye of the person at least one visual stimulus configured to elicit at least one eye movement in the at least one eye of the person towards the at least one visual stimulus; c) generating tracking data about the at least one eye movement of the at least one eye of the person by using at least one eye-tracking device; and d) determining the at least one visual performance from the tracking data by using at least one processing device; wherein the at least one visual performance of the at least one eye of the person is determined for at least one point in a visual field of the person by using a first spatial location of the at least one visual fixation mark and a second spatial location of the at least one visual stimulus; wherein an attention level of the person is determined by evaluating a time-related difference in the reaction times between the at least one particular measurement cycle and the at least one subsequent measurement cycle; ¶ 39: a plurality of time-related difference may be determined for a plurality of different points in the visual field of the person (implies first and second positions). Thereby, a map of the visual field may be generated, wherein the map comprises a plurality of time-related differences in reaction times, wherein each time-related difference in reaction times is related to a different point in the field of view). Although Wahl does not explicitly disclose evaluating the visual processing speed of the patient, because speed us by definition a calculation of distance/time and because Wahl discloses reaction time (eye movement time) from one location to another, modifying Wahl to evaluate the visual processing speed of the patient as claimed would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
In view of the foregoing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Wahl’s features for determining at least one visual performance of at least one eye of a person and to have modified MOONEY as claimed to predictably improve the spatial resolution ability of the at least one eye of the person with respect to a structure within at least one visual target (Wahl: ¶¶ 56-62).
[Claim 12] MOONEY teaches or at least suggests a method for evaluating visual processing speed using rapidly moving objects in a virtual reality (VR) environment (at least ¶ 2: methods for dynamically assessing a visual function of a subject; ¶ 3: A visual stimulus is “visible” to an observer, in an absolute sense, when the observer can become conscious of its distinguishing visual features … Visual stimuli may be nested within one another: a pre-rendered video can be considered a single visual stimulus, as can a single character, object, or other local feature the video depicts), the method comprising: displaying a VR environment on screens of a VR headset worn by a patient; displaying an optotype in the VR environment at a first position (at least ¶ 3: A visual stimulus is “visible” to an observer, in an absolute sense, when the observer can become conscious of its distinguishing visual features … Visual stimuli may be nested within one another: a pre-rendered video can be considered a single visual stimulus, as can a single character, object, or other local feature the video depicts; ¶ 67: present invention may be practiced using a device such as a tablet, a laptop, a mobile phone, a virtual-reality or augmented-reality display device, or a monitor attached to a desktop computer. The eye tracker used to measure the participant's gaze response may be a head-mounted eye tracker, such as the Tobii Pro Glasses, a display-mounted eye tracker).
MOONEY further teaches or at least suggests comparing one or more of the first movement, the first reaction time, the second movement, and the second reaction time to a database (at least ¶ 70: Target tracking events may be detected by analyzing gaze position over a sliding time window of gaze samples (e.g. 0.15 seconds) each time a new gaze sample arrives, and comparing it to the position of a given target over the same time window …; ¶ 96: compare the recent trajectories of the stimulus and the observer's gaze to detect tracking …; ¶ 128: calculate a set of trajectory-match scores by comparing the gaze position signal to the position of each stimulus over a time window; ¶ 140: calculate an evidence-of-visibility score by comparing the gaze position and eye position of one or both eyes of the person during the first period of time to the position on the display of the first visual stimulus during the first period of time).
MOONEY appears to be silent on but Wahl teaches or at least suggests identifying an initial position of a patient's eyes; displaying the optotype in the VR environment as the optotype travels from the first position to a second position; tracking a first movement of the patient's eyes as the patient's eye moves from the first position to the second position; identifying a first reaction time; displaying the optotype in the VR environment as the optotype travels from the second position to a third position; tracking a second movement of the patient's eyes as the patient's eye moves from the second position to the third position; identifying a second reaction time; and comparing one or more of the first movement, the first reaction time, the second movement, and the second reaction time to a database (at least ¶¶ 16-22: determining at least one visual performance of at least one eye of a person wherein an attention level of the person is determined by evaluating a time-related difference in reaction times between at least one particular measurement cycle and at least one subsequent measurement cycle; determining at least one visual performance of at least one eye of a person, wherein the method comprises at least the following steps: a) displaying on a screen to the at least one eye of a person at least one visual fixation mark configured to attract a visual perception of the person by directing a line of sight of the at least one eye of the person towards the visual fixation mark; b) subsequently displaying on a screen to the at least one eye of the person at least one visual stimulus configured to elicit at least one eye movement in the at least one eye of the person towards the at least one visual stimulus; c) generating tracking data about the at least one eye movement of the at least one eye of the person by using at least one eye-tracking device; and d) determining the at least one visual performance from the tracking data by using at least one processing device; wherein the at least one visual performance of the at least one eye of the person is determined for at least one point in a visual field of the person by using a first spatial location of the at least one visual fixation mark and a second spatial location of the at least one visual stimulus; wherein an attention level of the person is determined by evaluating a time-related difference in the reaction times between the at least one particular measurement cycle and the at least one subsequent measurement cycle; ¶ 39: a plurality of time-related difference may be determined for a plurality of different points in the visual field of the person (implies first, second, and third positions). Thereby, a map of the visual field may be generated, wherein the map comprises a plurality of time-related differences in reaction times, wherein each time-related difference in reaction times is related to a different point in the field of view). Although Wahl does not explicitly disclose evaluating the visual processing speed of the patient, because speed us by definition a calculation of distance/time and because Wahl discloses reaction time (eye movement time) from one location to another, modifying Wahl to evaluate the visual processing speed of the patient as claimed would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
In view of the foregoing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Wahl’s features for determining at least one visual performance of at least one eye of a person and to have modified MOONEY as claimed to predictably improve the spatial resolution ability of the at least one eye of the person with respect to a structure within at least one visual target (Wahl: ¶¶ 56-62).
Re claims 4, 11, 17 and 20:
[Claims 4 and 17] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests wherein tracking the first and second movements of the patient's eyes comprises tracking the first and second movements in real-time (at least MOONEY: ¶ 8: … updating, in real time, the dynamic evidence-of-visibility score and/or the evidence-of-trackability score associated with the first stimulus … in step g) and step h); and j) updating in real time the appearance of the first stimulus to provide a second stimulus …).
[Claims 11 and 20] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests wherein comparing one or more of the first movement, the first reaction time, the second movement, and the second reaction time to the database comprises comparing the first movement, the first reaction time, the second movement, and the second reaction time to the database in real-time (at least MOONEY: ¶ 8: … updating, in real time, the dynamic evidence-of-visibility score and/or the evidence-of-trackability score associated with the first stimulus … in step g) and step h); and j) updating in real time the appearance of the first stimulus to provide a second stimulus …; Wahl: ¶¶ 16,17: evaluating a time-related difference in reaction times between at least one particular measurement cycle and at least one subsequent measurement cycle; ¶ 39: … a plurality of time-related difference may be determined for a plurality of different points in the visual field of the person (implies first and second, positions)).
Re claim 7:
[Claim 7] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but DHILLON teaches or at least suggests changing one or more of a shape, size, color, brightness, or contrast of the optotype. Additionally, computers generally allow selection of brightness, or contrast and numerous computer applications, for example, Microsoft Word™, generally allow selection of font, size, color, etc. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 8:
[Claim 8] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests wherein the optotype is displayed at the first position at a first time and the optotype is displayed at the second position at a second time (at least Wahl: ¶¶ 128-130, 142: The pursuit detector may be configured to (1) display one or more variable-contrast stimuli, each of which moves from a first location on the display to a second location on the display; (2) receive, from the eye-tracking device, the gaze position signal detected from one or both eyes as each variable-contrast stimulus moves from the first location to the second location; (3) calculate a set of trajectory-match scores by comparing the gaze position signal to the position of each stimulus over a time window).
Re claim 9:
[Claim 9] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on changing a number of milliseconds between the first time and the second time. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of adjusting/changing stimuli presentation intervals were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claims 13-16:
[Claim 13] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests wherein displaying the optotype in the VR environment at the first, second, and third positions comprises displaying the optotype moving continuously along a path that includes the first, second, and third positions (at least MOONEY: ¶ 52: At the Stimulus Generation Step (110), one or more “stimulus sweeps” may be created. A stimulus sweep may comprise an ordered sequence of one or more visual stimuli … each sweep may form a continuous trajectory through the CSF space (e.g. a straight or curved line); ¶ 61: While visible, the stimuli may move along one or more paths generated in advance of the Presentation/Response).
[Claim 14] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests wherein displaying the optotype in the VR environment at the first and second positions comprises displaying the optotype moving along a path that includes the first, second, and third positions and pausing at the first, second, and third positions (at least MOONEY: ¶ 52: At the Stimulus Generation Step (110), one or more “stimulus sweeps” may be created. A stimulus sweep may comprise an ordered sequence of one or more visual stimuli … each sweep may form a continuous trajectory through the CSF space (e.g. a straight or curved line) or may be arbitrary (e.g. a random sequence of parameter pairs); ¶ 61: While visible, the stimuli may move along one or more paths generated in advance of the Presentation/Response; ¶¶ 65, 167: the task may be paused automatically …; ¶ 153: The eye tracker was used to pause the task before each trial).
[Claim 15] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests changing a speed at which the optotype travels (at least MOONEY: ¶ 60: Stimulus speed may change throughout the path and/or vary both between and within method applications as a function of participant responses or to facilitate different measurement needs or display devices).
[Claim 16] MOONEY in view of Wahl teaches or at least suggests wherein displaying the optotype in the VR environment at the first and second positions comprises displaying the optotype moving along a path that includes the first, second, and third positions and pausing at the first, second, and third positions (at least MOONEY: ¶ 52: At the Stimulus Generation Step (110), one or more “stimulus sweeps” may be created. A stimulus sweep may comprise an ordered sequence of one or more visual stimuli … each sweep may form a continuous trajectory through the CSF space (e.g. a straight or curved line) or may be arbitrary (e.g. a random sequence of parameter pairs); ¶¶ 65, 167: the task may be paused automatically …; ¶ 153: The eye tracker was used to pause the task before each trial).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOONEY in view of Wahl, as applied to claims 1 and 12, further in view of DHILLON (US 20140078395 A1).
Re claims 2-3:
[Claim 2] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but DHILLON teaches or at least suggests wherein displaying the optotype in the VR environment comprises fading the optotype into the VR environment and removing the optotype comprise fading the optotype out of the VR environment (at least ¶ 4: Conventionally used transition effects include … fades, wherein there is A fade is a gradual transition between a shot and a constant image (fade-out) or between a constant image and a shot (fade-in)). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used fade-in and fade-out conventional transition effects, as taught by DHILLON and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 3] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but DHILLON teaches or at least suggests wherein displaying the optotype in the VR environment comprises instantly displaying the optotype in the VR environment and removing the optotype comprises instantly removing the optotype from the VR environment (at least ¶ 4: Conventionally used transition effects include hard cuts, wherein there is an instantaneous transition from one shot to the next). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used hard cuts conventional transition effects, as taught by DHILLON and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOONEY in view of Wahl, as applied to claims 1 and 12, further in view of Butler et al. (US 7988287 B1) (Butler).
Re claims 5-6 and 18-19:
[Claim 5] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but Butler teaches or at least suggests wherein identifying the first reaction time comprises identifying an amount of time taken by the patient's eyes to move from the initial position to the first position (at least col 4, lines 3-6: A response time is determined of the eye to follow the target from the first position to the second position to determine the accommodation of the eye). The additional step of identifying the second reaction time comprises identifying an amount of time taken by the patient's eyes to move from the first position to the second position amounts to no more than repeating the determination of reaction time for another set of two points. It is well settled that the mere duplication of a known step/part cannot be unobvious absent a showing to the contrary. See Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U.S. 187, 195 (1876); Slawson v. Grand Street P.P. & F.R. Co., 107 U.S. 649 (1883); Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 163 (1892); In re Scott, 25 App.D.C. 307 (CADC 1905); In re Volkmann, 28 App.D.C. 441 (CADC 1906); Condit
Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 200 F. 144 (1st Cir. 1912). In view of the foregoing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Butler’s response time determination and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 6] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but Butler teaches or at least suggests wherein identifying the first and second reaction times comprises identifying the time at which the patient's eyes reach the first and second positions, respectively (at least col 4, lines 3-6: A response time is determined of the eye to follow the target from the first position to the second position to determine the accommodation of the eye; col 10, lines 25-26: The motion of the eye tracking vector over time is measured; col 10, lines 51-53: To measure these response times a target will be "moved" in time periods much smaller than this, on the order of tens of milliseconds). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Butler’s response time determination and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 18] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but Butler teaches or at least suggests wherein identifying the first reaction time comprises identifying an amount of time taken by the patient's eyes to move from the initial position to the first position (at least col 4, lines 3-6: A response time is determined of the eye to follow the target from the first position to the second position to determine the accommodation of the eye). The additional step of identifying the second reaction time comprises identifying an amount of time taken by the patient's eyes to move from the first position to the second position amounts to no more than repeating the determination of reaction time for another set of two points. It is well settled that the mere duplication of a known step/part cannot be unobvious absent a showing to the contrary. See Dunbar v. Meyers, 94 U.S. 187, 195 (1876); Slawson v. Grand Street P.P. & F.R. Co., 107 U.S. 649 (1883); Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 163 (1892); In re Scott, 25 App.D.C. 307 (CADC 1905); In re Volkmann, 28 App.D.C. 441 (CADC 1906); Condit
Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 200 F. 144 (1st Cir. 1912). In view of the foregoing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Butler’s response time determination and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 19] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but Butler teaches or at least suggests wherein identifying the first and second reaction times comprises identifying the time at which the patient's eyes reach the second and third positions, respectively (at least col 4, lines 3-6: A response time is determined of the eye to follow the target from the first position to the second position to determine the accommodation of the eye; col 10, lines 25-26: The motion of the eye tracking vector over time is measured; col 10, lines 51-53: To measure these response times a target will be "moved" in time periods much smaller than this, on the order of tens of milliseconds). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Butler’s response time determination and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MOONEY in view of Wahl, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Webster (US 5274405 A).
Re claim 10:
[Claim 10] MOONEY in view of Wahl appears to be silent on but Webster teaches or at least suggests wherein displaying the optotype in the VR environment at the first and second positions comprises incrementally increasing a field of vision in which the optotype is displayed (at least col 1, lines 19-22: an optical viewing apparatus for viewing images and, more particularly, to an apparatus which extends the perceptible viewing field presented to a viewer; col 14, lines 4-6: the field of view is being changed in corresponding increments with the head (through the tracking of the image gatherer). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Webster’s field of view increment feature and to have modified MOONEY in view of Wahl as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights