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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “beam reflected or by the retina”. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes “beam reflected or by the retina” will be read as “beam reflected by the retina”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant application claim 10 recites, “the position of the beam of illumination” while only “two beams of light are described”. It is unclear whether claim 10 is directed to a first or a second beam of light, both beams of light, or another beam of light. Therebefore the metes and bounds of claims 10 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 11-20 are dependent on claim 10 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant application claim 16 alternatively recites either a plurality of VCSEL’s associated with a plurality of diffractive optical or a single VCSEL associated with at least one optical component generating a plurality of light beams. However, this claim substantially requires measuring the deflection of “the beams emitted sequentially by each of the VSCELs, diffracted by each of the diffractive optical elements.” It is unclear how the limitation applies to the single VSCEL alternative, which does not introduce a plurality of VCSEL’s or a plurality of diffractive optical elements. It is further unclear which previously cited beams provide antecedent basis for “the beams”. Therebefore the metes and bounds of claims 16 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an eye of the individual”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “an eye of the individual” will be read as “an eye of an individual”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the accommodation of the eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “a the accommodation of the eye” will be read as “an accommodation of the eye”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the divergence of which is controlled”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the divergence of which is controlled” will be read as “a divergence of which is controlled”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to the axis of the lens”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “to the axis of the lens” will be read as “to an axis of the lens”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “toward the interior of the membrane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “toward the interior of the membrane” will be read as “toward an interior of the membrane”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in the direction of the crystalline lens”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “in the direction of the crystalline lens” will be read as “in a direction of a crystalline lens”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “toward the exterior”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “toward the exterior” will be read as “toward an exterior”.
Claims 2-20 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “from the exterior”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “from the exterior” will be read as “from an exterior”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the sources via the interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the sources via the interface” will be read as “the sources of illumination via the interface”.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “to detect the position of the beam”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “to detect the position of the beam” will be read as “to detect a position of the beam”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “toward the exterior so as”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “toward the exterior so as” will be read as “toward the exterior of the membrane so as”.
Claims 11-20 are dependent on claim 10 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted, as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2021/0382325, of record) in view of Wiser et al. (US 8,827,445) in view of Bell, JR. et al. (US 2003/0007257) hereinafter Bell.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kubota discloses a contact lens (Figures 2A and 2B) intended to be worn by an eye of an individual (Examiner notes that a contact lens is intended to be worn by an eye of an individual), to measure refractive error and/or an accommodation of the eye ([0122] discloses: treatment data may comprise data related to stimulus parameters; [0007] discloses: present device provide improved treatment of refractive error), comprising:
a membrane ([0076] discloses: 14, optical zone, 16, peripheral zone, and 18, outermost edge zone; collectively considered the membrane) configured to transparently cover the pupil ([0076] discloses: 14, optical zone, with a visual acuity of 20/20 or better, considered transparent) and to cover the iris of the eye ([0076] discloses: 16, peripheral zone, is primarily designed to provide a good fit to the cornea; thus, because the contact lens is fitted over the cornea and extends radially outward around the pupil 14, optical zone and 16, peripheral zone are considered to cover the pupil and the iris region of the eye);
at least one source of illumination ([0087] discloses: 18, light projection unit, can include 40, light source with, 12, plurality of projection units and 32, optics) encapsulated in the membrane ([0075] discloses: biocompatible material can encapsulate the components of 10, soft contact lens, that contain: 14, optical zone, 16, peripheral zone, and 18, outermost edge zone), the one or more sources of illumination being configured to emit a cone or beam of light ([0090] discloses: 32, optic comprises a plurality of mirrors configured to collect light from micro-displays and direct to pupil of eye; thus configured to emit a beam of light) a divergence of which is controlled with respect to an axis of the lens ([0090] discloses: light collimated and directed toward the retina with a suitable vergence; thus, controlling the divergence with respect to the axis of the lens using 32, optics; [0087] discloses: 32, optics part of 18, projection units; Figure 2B depicts: 18, projection units mounted on 10, contact lens), one of the two beams being intended to be directed toward an interior of the membrane in a direction of a crystalline lens and/or retina of the eye ([0090] discloses: 32, optic comprises a plurality of mirrors configured to collect light from micro-displays and direct to pupil of eye) so as to create a source spot on the retina ([0090] discloses: so as to focus the light beam on the retina).
Kubota fails to disclose a device with a source of illumination to emit a second cone or beam of light that is intended to be directed toward the exterior of the membrane in a direction away from the eye, the divergence of which is controlled with respect to the axis of the lens. Kubota and Wiser are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Wiser teaches a device with a source of illumination (Col. 12 lines 60-63 teach: 276, light source) to emit a second cone or beam of light (Col. 12 lines 60-63 teach: 286, modulated emitted light; Examiner notes that the first beam is supplied by Kubota which is then modified to include the second beam of light from Wiser) that is intended to be directed toward an exterior of the membrane (Figure 2B depicts: 286, modulated emitted light, directed toward the exterior of 224, the convex surface of 210, eye mountable device; directed toward exterior is considered to be out of the mountable device, in direction of arrow 286) in a direction away from the eye (Figure 2B depicts: arrow of 286, modulated emitted light, directed away from the convex surface of the eye mountable device, considered away from the eye). Kubota and Bell are related because both disclose optical emitters and controlling/shaping light emitted from a light source.
Bell teaches a device controlling, the divergence of an emitted light beam with respect to an axis of a lens ([0035]-[0036] teaches: 552, beam shaping lens, and controlling initial beam divergence angle; it would have been obvious to adapt the beam controlling of Bell to the light beam direction of Wiser; Bell teaches beam shaping control with respect to an axis, see Figures 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubota in view of Wiser and Bell and provide a device with a source of illumination to emit a second cone or beam of light that is intended to be directed toward the exterior of the membrane in a direction away from the eye, the divergence of which is controlled with respect to the axis of the lens. Doing so would allow the contact lens to provide inward retinal illumination while also emitting a controlled divergence outward optical signal that is more efficiently coupled to an external reader/photodetector, thereby improving external detection and alignment of the contact lens/eye position while reducing optical loss and power consumption.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 1, comprising at least two separate sources of illumination ([0047] discloses: plurality of light sources; [0087] light projection units can comprise 32, optics and 30 light source) namely one for emitting the beam intended to be directed toward the interior of the membrane in the direction of the crystalline lens and/or retina of the eye ([0090] discloses: 32, optical configuration directs light beam to the pupil of the eye) and the other for emitting the beam intended to be directed toward the exterior of the membrane in a direction away from the eye (Wiser: Figure 2B depicts: 286, modulated emitted light, directed toward the exterior of 224, the convex surface of 210, eye mountable device; directed toward exterior is considered to be out of the mountable device, in direction of arrow 286; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 1, comprising at least one other diffractive optical element, encapsulated in the membrane ([0077] discloses: contact lens includes embedded projection units, that comprises optics, each optic may comprise a diffractive optic, thus a diffractive optical element) and configured to receive the light beam emitted by the one or more sources of illumination (Wiser: Col. 4, lines 20-25 teach: a photodetector configured to receive an incident light signal) that is directed toward the exterior of the membrane and to collimate said beam or project a target or reticle (Wiser: Figure 1 depicts: emitted light from body mountable device incident on 190, reader that contains 196, photodetector; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged), so as to allow the orientation of the gaze, to be computed or one or more detectors arranged on the periphery of the eye to be addressed ([0060] discloses: using eye movement to determine primary gaze using 94, active pixels; Figure 1A depicts: 94, active pixels, arranged around periphery of eye, while glasses are being worn).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 1, the sources of illumination emitting in the infrared (Wiser: Col. 8, lines 25-28 teach: light emitted by light source could be infrared; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 1, the one or more sources of illumination being one or more light-emitting diodes (LEDs), or one or more vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers (VCSELs) or one or more edge-emitting laser diodes (Wiser: Col. 8, lines 35-40 teach: light emitted by light source may include light emitting diodes; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 6, wherein the one or more LEDs or VCSELs are each provided with an optical device for shaping their beams ([0090] teaches: 32, optics, comprises a plurality of mirrors configured to collect light emitted then direct light to pupil, in order to form an eccentric retinal image, therefore considered beam shaping).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
at least one interface for collecting and supplying the sources of illumination with electrical energy ([0087] discloses: 21, power source function, that contains the battery, thus electrical energy), from an exterior of the lens (Figure 2 depicts: 20, battery and 24, PCB on an exterior of the lens); and
at least one electronic circuit ([0077] discloses: 24, printed circuit board) configured to activate the sources of illumination via the interface ([0087] discloses: 24, PCB, 20, battery coupled to component to provide control function of the lens, including light intensity and light switching).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 8, further comprising a battery ([0087] discloses: 21, power source function, that contains the battery) encapsulated in the membrane and connected to the interface ([0075] discloses: biocompatible material can encapsulate the components of the contact lens), the battery being configured to be recharged via the interface and to supply the sources of illumination and/or optoelectronic functions associated with the sources of illumination electrically ([0077] discloses: inductively charging the battery), the electronic circuit being configured to activate the sources using the battery ([0087] discloses: 24, PCB, 20, battery coupled to component to provide control function of the lens, including light intensity and light switching).
Claims 3, 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2021/0382325, of record) in view of Wiser et al. (US 8,827,445) in view of Bell, JR. et al. (US 2003/0007257), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Samec et al. (US 2016/0270656).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kubota discloses the contact lens as claimed in claim 1, comprising at least one diffractive optical element, encapsulated in the membrane ([0077] discloses: contact lens includes embedded projection units, that comprises optics, each optic may comprise a diffractive optic) and configured to receive the light beam emitted by the one or more sources of illumination that is directed toward the interior of the membrane ([0090] discloses: 32, optical configuration directs light beam to the pupil of the eye, thus toward the interior of the membrane).
Kubota fails to disclose an optical element to diffract said beam in the direction of the crystalline lens and/or retina of the eye and to create at least at least two separate source spots on the retina so as to generate interference between the beams reflected by the retina. Kubota and Samec are related because both disclose optical systems.
Samec teaches an optical element (Figure 26G depicts: 178, waveguide stack, considered an optical element under BRI) to diffract said beam in the direction of the crystalline lens and/or retina of the eye (Figure 1 depicts: diffraction of light from 144, world, by 178, waveguide stack, to retina of eye, see [1991]) and to create at least at least two separate source spots on the retina ([1991] discloses: two distinct spots being formed on the retina, therefore considered source spots) so as to generate interference between the beams reflected by the retina (Examiner notes that Samec uses the interference to verge the beams and create a single spot on the retina of the eye, see [1992]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubota in view of Samec and provide an optical element to diffract said beam in the direction of the crystalline lens and/or retina of the eye and to create at least at least two separate source spots on the retina so as to generate interference between the beams reflected by the retina. Doing so would allow for multiple source spots that can be evaluated and analyzed, thereby improving refractive error measurement accuracy and facilitating determination of the optical characteristics of the eye.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the modified Kubota discloses an autorefractor comprising:
at least one contact lens as claimed in claim 1;
a carrier ([0053] discloses: 70, spectacles), intended to be positioned stationary with respect to the face of the individual (Examiner notes that spectacles sit on the ears and are considered to be positioned stationary with respect to the face of the individual);
at least one detector ([0059] discloses: eyeglass frame can include a position sensitive detector) that is securely fastened to the carrier ([0059] discloses: sensor is embedded in eyeglass frame), the one or more detectors being configured to detect the position of the beam of illumination of the contact lens that is directed toward the exterior of the membrane so as to extract therefrom the angle of deflection with respect to normal of the gaze ([0059] discloses: sensors can measure position of the eye using light to generate a corneal reflex, and hence detect the position of the visual axis).
Kubota fails to disclose a device with at least one sensor which is securely fastened to the carrier, and which forms part of a refractometer configured to locate the wavefront of the beam reflected by the retina and/or crystalline lens and refracted by the eye so as to measure the refractive error of the eye given the angle of deflection measured by the detector. Kubota and Samec are related because both disclose optical systems.
Samec teaches a device with at least one sensor ( [0362] teaches: autorefractor) which is securely fastened to the carrier (Examiner notes that the autorefractor of Samec is in the headset, analogous to the eyeglasses frame of Kubota), and which forms part of a refractometer configured to locate the wavefront of the beam reflected by the retina and/or crystalline lens and refracted by the eye so as to measure the refractive error of the eye given the angle of deflection measured by the detector ([0175] teaches: using angle of convergence of position of eye to modify focus; [0588] teaches: using device to measure the refractive error of said eye).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubota in view of Samec and provide an a device with at least one sensor which is securely fastened to the carrier, and which forms part of a refractometer configured to locate the wavefront of the beam reflected by the retina and/or crystalline lens and refracted by the eye so as to measure the refractive error of the eye given the angle of deflection measured by the detector. Doing so would allow for multiple source spots that can be evaluated and analyzed, thereby improving refractive error measurement accuracy and facilitating determination of the optical characteristics of the eye.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kubota discloses the autorefractor as claimed in claim 10, the detector being a position sensitive detector or a camera ([0059] discloses: eyeglass frame can include a position sensitive detector).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kubota discloses the autorefractor as claimed in claim 10, the carrier being a mount, intended to be worn on the face of the individual (Examiner notes that the spectacles are considered a mount, they mount using the ears of the individual and are intended to be worn on the face of the individual).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2021/0382325, of record) in view of Wiser et al. (US 8,827,445) in view of Bell, JR. et al. (US 2003/0007257) in view of Samec et al. (US 2016/0270656), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Jean-Louis et al. (US 2022/0197030, of record).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kubota discloses the autorefractor as claimed in claim 10.
Kubota fails to disclose a device comprising a single PSD, intended to be arranged facing the eye, the PSD being transparent in the visible and sensitive in the near infrared , the one or more sources of illumination of the contact lens emitting in the near infrared. Kubota and Jean-Louis are related because both disclose contact lens systems.
Jean-Louis teaches a device comprising a single PSD, intended to be arranged facing the eye, the PSD being transparent in the visible and sensitive in the near infrared , the one or more sources of illumination of the contact lens emitting in the near infrared (see [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubota in view of Jean-Louis and provide a device comprising a single PSD, intended to be arranged facing the eye, the PSD being transparent in the visible and sensitive in the near infrared , the one or more sources of illumination of the contact lens emitting in the near infrared. Doing so would allow for the detector to sense the outward tracking beam without obstructing the wearers field of view producing visible distraction, thereby improving continuous gaze-angle detection.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Kubota discloses the autorefractor as claimed in claim 10.
Kubota fails to disclose a device comprising two PSDs, intended to be arranged on the periphery of the eye, substantially in a plane facing the eye, so as to cover the range of angular variation in position of the eye, the PSDs being arranged so as not to obstruct the vision of the individual. Kubota and Jean-Louis are related because both disclose contact lens systems.
Jean-Louis teaches a device comprising two PSDs, intended to be arranged on the periphery of the eye, substantially in a plane facing the eye, so as to cover the range of angular variation in position of the eye, the PSDs being arranged so as not to obstruct the vision of the individual (see [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubota in view of Jean-Louis and provide a device comprising a single PSD, intended to be arranged facing the eye, the PSD being transparent in the visible and sensitive in the near infrared , the one or more sources of illumination of the contact lens emitting in the near infrared. Doing so would allow for the detector to sense the outward tracking beam without obstructing the wearers field of view producing visible distraction, thereby improving continuous gaze-angle detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim any intervening claims and to overcome any 112 objections/rejections if applicable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “the refractometer being configured to operate as an interferometer configured to measure interference between at least one beam reflected by the retina and refracted by the eye and another illumination beam reflected by the retina” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 12, 10 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claims 13-15 are dependent on claim 12 and therefore allowed for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “comprising, as part of the refractometer, a plurality of detectors that are securely fastened to the carrier and arranged to be distributed around the eye, the lens comprising a plurality of VCSELs by way of source of illumination and a plurality of diffractive optical elements each associated with one of the VCSELs, or a single VCSEL associated with at least one optical component generating a plurality of light beams directed toward said detectors, the refractometer being configured to measure the deflection of the beams emitted sequentially by each of the VSCELs, diffracted by each of the diffractive optical elements, reflected by the retina and refracted by the eye” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 10 and 1, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “as part of the refractometer, a camera that is securely fastened to the carrier, the lens comprising a VCSEL by way of source of illumination and a diffractive optical element taking the form of a hologram, the camera being configured to analyze the deformation of the pattern of the hologram, reflected by the crystalline lens” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 10 and 1, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Biederman et al. (US 8,764,185) teaches a contact lens but fails to disclose the correct layout, Roholt et al (US 2017/0079771) teaches vision modification and testing but fails to disclose the correct eye configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights