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
Amendment, filed on 01/09/2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-4, 6, 8-9 and 14 being amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The instant application has a lengthy prosecution history and the examiner encourages the applicant to have an interview (telephonic or personal) with the examiner prior to filing a response to the instant office action. Also, prior to the interview the examiner encourages the applicant to present multiple possible claim amendments, so as to enable the examiner to identify claim amendments that will advance prosecution in a meaningful manner.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but they are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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 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 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, 8-9, 11, 17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail (“Trail”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2018/0205943 A1] in view of Kim (“Kim”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2023/0048195 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
A light projection device (i.e. ‘the HMD 100’) [Fig. 1,2; para. 0017-0021 disclose a HMD structure], comprising:
an image light generation system that generates image light (i.e. ‘an electronic display 210’) [Fig. 2, para. 0018: ‘The electronic display 210 generates image light’]; and
a projection system (i.e. ‘optical assembly 220’) [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020: ‘an electronic display 210 an optical assembly 220 that together provide image light to an exit pupil 225’; ‘The optical assembly 220 magnifies received light from the electronic display 210’] that projects (i.e. ‘magnifies’) the image light generated by the image light generation system onto an optical element worn on or embedded in an eyeball of a user (e.g. ‘the HMD 100’) [Fig. 1; para. 0017-0020: ‘the corrected image light is presented to a user of the HMD 100’],
wherein the projection system includes an aperture (i.e. ‘an aperture’) [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020: ‘At least one optical element of the optical assembly 220 may be an aperture’; ‘the optical assembly 220 is designed so its effective focal length is larger than the spacing to the electronic display 210’] that is disposed on an optical path of the image light from the image light generation system and that is variable in at least an aperture position [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020: ‘The varifocal module … to change the focal plane by adjusting a location of one more optical elements of the optical assembly 220’],
wherein, in response to the eyeball of the user (i.e. ‘information about the position and orientation of the user’s eye’) [para. 0042] being aligned along a first line of sight, a center of a transmission portion of the aperture within a plane that is perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical path of the image light is (i.e. ‘adjust’) at a first position [Fig. 2, 3: ‘The electronic display 210 may also include an aperture’; para. 0018, 0021, 0042: disclosing ‘information about the position and orientation of the user’s eye … to adjust where objects are displayed’; ‘Based on the determined and tracked position and orientation of the user’s eye 230 (i.e., eye-gaze), the HMD 100 may adjust presentation of an image displayed on the eye tracking information’; ‘displaying an image on the electronic display 210 can be provided only in … the determined eye-gaze’] and
wherein, in response to the eyeball of the user being aligned along a second line of sight (i.e. another line of sight), the center of a transmission portion of the aperture within a plane that is perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical path of the image light is (i.e. ‘adjust’) at a second position [See rejection of “wherein, in response a first line of sight of the eyeball of the user”].
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein, in response to the eyeball of the user being aligned along a first line of sight, a center of a transmission portion of the aperture within a plane that is perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical path of the image light is at a first position and
wherein, in response to the eyeball of the user being aligned along a second line of sight, the center of a transmission portion of the aperture within a plane that is perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical path of the image light is at a second position.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein, in response to the eyeball of the user being aligned along a first line of sight [Fig. 2B shows the eyeball below the optical axis], a center of a transmission portion of the aperture within a plane that is perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical path of the image light is at a first position (i.e. the aperture Adl at C2) [Fig. 2B shows the eyeball below the optical axis; Fig. 6A], and
wherein, in response to the eyeball of the user being aligned along a second line of sight [Fig. 2C shows the eyeball above the optical axis], the center of a transmission portion of the aperture within a plane that is perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical path of the image light is at a second position (i.e. the aperture Adl at C3) [Fig. 2B shows the eyeball above the optical axis; Fig. 6B].
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to dynamically control the aperture size and the aperture adjustment element so as to solve the technical problem [Kim: para. 0009-0010].
Regarding claim 8, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 1, wherein the projection system includes: an eyeball information detecting unit (i.e. ‘Eye Tracking System 130’ or Position Sensors 140’) [Figs. 1-3] that detects eyeball information that is information regarding the eyeball [para. 0002, 0013, 0016: ‘detecting the location of the eye … the current focal distance of the eye’; ‘estimates a position and angular orientation of an eye of a user wearing the HMD 100’]; and a control unit (i.e. ‘The varifocal module’) [Fig. 5: ’550’] that controls a position of a transmission portion of the aperture on a basis of a detection result from the eyeball information detecting unit [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020, 0031: ‘The varifocal module … to change the focal plane by adjusting a location of one more optical elements of the optical assembly 220’; ‘The change of location of the one or more optical elements of the optical assembly 220 and/or the change of location of the electronic display 210 is based on the information about eye position/orientation’].
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a control unit that controls a position of a transmission portion of the aperture on a basis of a detection result from the eyeball information detecting unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a control unit that controls a position of a transmission portion of the aperture [Fig. 2B, 2C; 6A, 6B:control position, first dynamic aperture position and second dynamic aperture position] on a basis of a detection result from the eyeball information detecting unit.
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to dynamically control the aperture size and the aperture adjustment element so as to solve the technical problem [Kim: para. 0009-0010].
Regarding claim 9, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 8, wherein the control unit (i.e. ‘The varifocal module’) [Fig. 5: ’550’] adjusts at least one of the position of the transmission portion of the aperture [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020, 0031: ‘The varifocal module … to change the focal plane by adjusting a location of one more optical elements of the optical assembly 220’; ‘The change of location of the one or more optical elements of the optical assembly 220 and/or the change of location of the electronic display 210 is based on the information about eye position/orientation’], an aperture size of the aperture, or transmittance or reflectance of the aperture on a basis of the detection result from the eyeball information detecting unit.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
an aperture size of the aperture, or transmittance or reflectance of the aperture on a basis of the detection result from the eyeball information detecting unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
an aperture size of the aperture [para. 0011, 0044: ‘to dynamically control an aperture size’], or transmittance or reflectance of the aperture on a basis of the detection result from the eyeball information detecting unit.
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to dynamically control the aperture size and the aperture adjustment element so as to solve the technical problem [Kim: para. 0009-0010].
Regarding claim 11, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 1, the light projection device (i.e. ‘the HMD 100’) being disposed at a position outside a front visual field of the user [Fig. 1,2; para. 0017-0021 disclose a HMD structure].
Regarding claim 17, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 1, wherein the optical element is a diffractive optical element [para. 0018: ‘The electronic display 210 may also include … a diffractive element, …’].
Regarding claim 19, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 1, the light projection device being of a head-mounted type (i.e. ‘the HMD 100’) [Fig. 1,2; para. 0017-0021 disclose a HMD structure].
Regarding claim 20, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
A display devices comprising: the light projection device according to claim 1 (i.e. ‘the HMD 100’) [Fig. 1,2; para. 0017-0021 disclose a HMD structure]; and the optical element [Fig. 2: Optical Assembly 220].
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail in view of Kim in further view of Schnitzler et al. (“Schnitzler”) [US 2017/0299783 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Trail meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 1, wherein the aperture includes a plurality of pixels switchable between an on state for guiding a light beam included in the image light from the image light generation system to an optical path to the optical element and an off state for not guiding the light beam.
However in the same field of endeavor Schnitzler discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the aperture includes a plurality of pixels switchable (i.e. ‘Aperture limiter 12’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0067-0068: ‘the matrix elements, i.e. 14a to 14i’] between an on state for guiding a light beam included in the image light from the image light generation system to an optical path to the optical element and an off state for not guiding the light beam [Figs. 1-3; para. 0067-0068: ‘Transmittance can be locally switched on and off by controlling the matrix elements, i.e. electronically controllable segments 14a to 14i of aperture limiter 12’].
Trail, Kim and Schnitzler are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail, Kim and Schnitzler as motivation to include ‘an aperture limiter arranged in the pupil plane of the beam path’ to enable generation of high image quality [Schnitzler : para. 0007, 0009] and somewhat longer optical path length [Schnitzler: para. 0068].
Regarding claim 3, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 1, wherein the projection system includes a first optical system (i.e. ‘an aperture’) [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020: ‘At least one optical element of the optical assembly 220 may be an aperture’] that guides the image light from the image light generation system to the aperture and a second optical system that guides the image light through the aperture to the optical element.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the projection system includes a first optical system that guides the image light from the image light generation system to the aperture and a second optical system that guides the image light through the aperture to the optical element.
However in the same field of endeavor Schnitzler discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the projection system includes a first optical system that guides the image light (i.e. ‘the beam path 22’ and ‘the lens groups 36, 34a, 34b) from the image light generation system to the aperture (i.e. ‘Aperture limiter 12’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0029-0030, 0067-0068: ‘the matrix elements, i.e. 14a to 14i’] and a second optical system [Figs. 1-3: the lens groups 34c, 34d, 34e] that guides the image light through the aperture to the optical element.
Trail and Schnitzler are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Schnitzler as motivation to include ‘an aperture limiter arranged in the pupil plane of the beam path’ to enable generation of high image quality [Schnitzler : para. 0007, 0009] and somewhat longer optical path length [Schnitzler: para. 0068].
Regarding claim 4, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 3, wherein the image light generation system includes a display element (i.e. ‘Electronic Display ‘210’) [Fig. 2], the display element is disposed near a front focal position of the first optical system (i.e. ‘Optical Assembly 220’) [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020: ‘At least one optical element of the optical assembly 220 may be an aperture’; ‘the optical assembly 220 is designed so its effective focal length is larger than the spacing to the electronic display 210’], and the aperture (i.e. ‘an aperture’) [Fig. 2; para. 0017-0020: ‘At least one optical element of the optical assembly 220 may be an aperture’] is disposed near a rear focal position of the first optical system.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the image light generation system includes a display element, the display element is disposed near a front focal position of the first optical system, and the aperture is disposed near a rear focal position of the first optical system.
However in the same field of endeavor Schnitzler discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the image light generation system includes a display element, the display element is disposed near a front focal position of the first optical system (i.e. ‘the beam path 22’ and ‘the lens groups 36, 34a, 34b), and the aperture (i.e. ‘Aperture limiter 12’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0029-0030, 0067-0068: ‘the matrix elements, i.e. 14a to 14i’] is disposed near a rear focal position of the first optical system [Figs. 1-3: the lens groups 36, 34a, 34b].
Trail and Schnitzler are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Schnitzler as motivation to include ‘an aperture limiter arranged in the pupil plane of the beam path’ to enable generation of high image quality [Schnitzler : para. 0007, 0009] and somewhat longer optical path length [Schnitzler: para. 0068].
Regarding claim 12, Trail meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 2, wherein the pixels are of a transmissive type.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the pixels (i.e. ‘a micro display’) [Figs. 2A and 2B; para. 0032: ‘a transmissive or reflective liquid crystal’] are of a transmissive type.
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to restrict the aperture size so as to prevent unnecessary periphery light [Kim: para. 0039].
Regarding claim 13, Trail meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 2, wherein the pixels are of a reflective type.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the pixels (i.e. ‘a micro display’) [Figs. 2A and 2B; para. 0032: ‘a transmissive or reflective liquid crystal’] are of a reflective type.
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to restrict the aperture size so as to prevent unnecessary periphery light [Kim: para. 0039].
Regarding claim 14, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 2, wherein the aperture includes a pixel array having a plurality of the pixels [Figs. 1-3; para. 0021, 0049: ‘A maximum pixel density for displaying an image on the electronic display 210’; ‘displays two-dimensional or three-dimensional images’] that is one dimensionally arranged or two-dimensionally arranged.
Regarding claim 15, Trail meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 14.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 14, wherein the pixel array is a liquid crystal element.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the pixel array (i.e. ‘a micro display’) is a liquid crystal element [Figs. 2A and 2B; para. 0032: ‘a transmissive or reflective liquid crystal’].
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to restrict the aperture size so as to prevent unnecessary periphery light [Kim: para. 0039].
Regarding claim 16, Trail meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 14.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 14, wherein the pixel array is a digital mirror device.
However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the pixel array (i.e. ‘a micro display’) is a digital mirror device [Figs. 2A and 2B; para. 0032: ‘a digital mirror device (DMD)’].
Trail and Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of HMD systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Kim as motivation to restrict the aperture size so as to prevent unnecessary periphery light [Kim: para. 0039].
Claims 5-7 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail in view of Kim in further view of Schnitzler in further view of Futterer (“Futterer”) [US 2013/0222384 A1]
Regarding claim 5, Trail in view of Kim and Schnitzler meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 3.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 3, wherein the projection system forms an intermediate image of the image light between the second optical system and the optical element.
However in the same field of endeavor Futterer discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the projection system forms an intermediate image of the image light (i.e. ‘an intermediate image 280’) [Fig. 3; para. 0190] between the second optical system and the optical element.
Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer as motivation to include ‘a 4f imaging system’ of two lens systems for generating a magnified virtual image [Futterer: para. 0190].
Regarding claim 6, Trail in view of Kim and Schnitzler meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 5.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The light projection device according to claim 5, wherein the aperture is disposed near a front focal position of the second optical system, and the intermediate image is formed near a rear focal position of the second optical system.
However in the same field of endeavor Schnitzler discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the aperture (i.e. ‘Aperture limiter 12’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0029-0030, 0067-0068: ‘the matrix elements, i.e. 14a to 14i’] is disposed near a front focal position of the second optical system [Figs. 1-3: the lens groups 34c, 34d, 34e], and the intermediate image is formed near a rear focal position of the second optical system.
Trail, Kim, and Schnitzler are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail, Kim, and Schnitzler as motivation to include ‘an aperture limiter arranged in the pupil plane of the beam path’ to enable generation of high image quality [Schnitzler : para. 0007, 0009] and somewhat longer optical path length [Schnitzler: para. 0068].
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the aperture is disposed near a front focal position of the second optical system, and the intermediate image is formed near a rear focal position of the second optical system.
However in the same field of endeavor Futterer discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the aperture is disposed near a front focal position of the second optical system, and the intermediate image (i.e. ‘an intermediate image 280’) [Fig. 3; para. 0190] is formed near a rear focal position of the second optical system.
Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer as motivation to include ‘a 4f imaging system’ of two lens systems for generating a magnified virtual image [Futterer: para. 0190].
Regarding claim 7, Trail in view of Kim and Schnitzler meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 5.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The light projection device according to claim 5, wherein the intermediate image is formed near a front focal position of the optical element.
However in the same field of endeavor Futterer discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the intermediate image (i.e. ‘an intermediate image 280’) [Fig. 3; para. 0190] is formed near a front focal position of the optical element.
Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer as motivation to include ‘a 4f imaging system’ of two lens systems for generating a magnified virtual image [Futterer: para. 0190].
Regarding claim 10, Trail meets the claim limitations as follows:
The light projection device according to claim 3, wherein each of the first (i.e. ‘the electronic display 210’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0018: ‘a convex lens’] and second optical systems (i.e. ‘the optical assembly 220’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0050: ‘The optical assembly 530 includes …. Examples optical elements included … a convex lens’] includes an optical component having positive refractive power equivalent to refractive power of a convex lens or a plurality of optical components having positive refractive power in total equivalent to refractive power of a convex lens.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein each of the first and second optical systems includes an optical component having positive refractive power equivalent to refractive power of a convex lens or a plurality of optical components having positive refractive power in total equivalent to refractive power of a convex lens.
However in the same field of endeavor Futterer discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein each of the first and second optical systems includes an optical component having positive refractive power equivalent to refractive power of a convex lens [para. 0046: ‘also possible for a real convex lens to be disposed near the SLM, …’] or a plurality of optical components having positive refractive power in total equivalent to refractive power of a convex lens.
Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail, Kim, Schnitzler and Futterer as motivation to include ‘a convex lens’ to magnify image light [Trail: para. 0050] or to achieve maximum brightness in the entrance pupil of the observer eye Futterer: para. 0046, 0190, 0372].
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail in view of Kim in further view of Futterer (“Futterer”) [US 2013/0222384 A1]
Regarding claim 18, Trail meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Trail does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The light projection device according to claim 1, wherein the optical element is a holographic optical element.
However in the same field of endeavor Futterer discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the optical element (i.e. ‘HMD’) is a holographic optical element [para. 0022, 0035: ‘The object is to provide a holographic display which magnifies a spatial light modulator including a 3D scene encoded on it for use in a head-mounted display device’].
Trail, Kim and Futterer are combinable because they are from the same field of illumination systems.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Trail and Futterer as motivation to include a holographic HMD for the ‘space-bandwidth product (SBS) … to be reduced to a minimum’, to magnify a 3D scene or to be ‘a lightweight and compact design’ [Futterer: para. 0022, 0035, 0222, 0368].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488