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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 discloses “monitoring user eye movements” whereas it should be “monitoring the user eye movement”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 discloses “adjusting visual complexity” whereas it should be “adjusting the visual complexity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 discloses “adjusting visual complexity” whereas it should be “adjusting the visual complexity”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 16-20 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 7 discloses “adjusting visual complexity comprises modifying text size, reading speed, and visual complexity of diagrams in educational modules” in lines 1-2. The Examiner finds this limitation confusing because the wording appears to disclose “adjusting complexity comprises……changing complexity…..”. In other words, the Examiner cannot ascertain if the second iteration of “complexity” is supposed to be different than the first iteration of “complexity”. For example, a limitation that discloses “adjusting the game comprises…adjusting the game….”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the number of visual elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the user’s endurance profile " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the user " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the baseline levels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the baseline " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sensitivity of fatigue detection" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the degree of visual adjustments" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the system’s response" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the VR headset " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the eye-tracking technology" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the VR headset " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the eye-tracking technology " in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for implementing a virtual reality (VR) system that adjusts visual complexity based on real-time eye fatigue monitoring, comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display and eye-tracking sensors:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment; rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display;
continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking sensors, user eye movements and behavior;
detecting eye fatigue based on the user eye movements and behavior; and dynamically adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on the detected eye fatigue.Claim 19 recites:A system for implementing a virtual reality (VR) system that adjusts visual complexity based on real-time eye fatigue monitoring, comprising:
a head-mounted display;
eye-tracking sensors;
one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment; rendering the VR user interface on the VR headset;
continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking technology, user eye movements and behavior; and
dynamically adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on detected eye fatigue levels.
Claim 20 recites:A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with a head-mounted display and eye-tracking sensors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment;
rendering the VR user interface on the VR headset; continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking technology, user eye movements and behavior; and
dynamically adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on detected eye fatigue levels.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a head-mounted display) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: generating a VR user interface and adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on the detected eye fatigue.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 19-20 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: head-mounted display, eye-tracking sensor, and processor.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Yasuda et al., US 20090230229 discloses that head-mounted displays are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 4);
Stayton et al., US 20210031793 discloses that eye-tracking sensors are well0known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 69).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ke et al., US 20250190051 (Ke)
Regarding Claim 1. Ke disclosed a method of implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for implementing a virtual reality (VR) system that adjusts visual complexity based on real-time eye fatigue monitoring (Abstract, para 10, 12), comprising:
at an electronic device including a head-mounted display (Fig 1A; para 20, 34-34) and eye-tracking sensors (para 10, 12, 14-15, 20, 27-28):
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (para 10-11);
rendering the VR user interface on the head-mounted display (para 10-12);
continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking sensors, user eye movements and behavior (Abstract, para 11-12, 23); and
detecting eye fatigue based on the user eye movements and behavior (Abstract, para 11-12, 23); and
dynamically adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on the detected eye fatigue (Abstract, para 12, 17-18, 21-22, 26, 42-44, 50).
Regarding Claim 3. Ke disclosed the method of Claim 1, wherein monitoring the user eye movements and behavior comprises tracking blink rate, blink duration, pupil dilation, and fixation stability (para 15, 20, 34-35, 39-44).
Regarding Claim 5. Ke disclosed the method of Claim 1, wherein detecting eye fatigue comprises detecting signs of visual fatigue based on changes in eye-tracking metrics, wherein increased blink rate, longer blinks, prolonged pupil dilation or reduced fixation stability indicate eye fatigue (para 15, 20, 34-35, 39-44).
Regarding Claim 6. The method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting visual complexity is performed gradually to avoid abrupt changes that may disrupt user experience (para 47).
Regarding Claim 9. Ke disclosed the method of Claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting the visual complexity is based on a context selected from the group consisting of: education, gaming, and professional training, with context-specific adjustments based on fatigue indicators (para 12, 17-18, 21. Adjusting a virtual image, such as the focal length, based on fatigue indicators is interpreted as context-specific adjustment).
Regarding Claim 15. Ke disclosed the method of Claim 1, further comprising calibrating and validating the system using a control group to establish baseline measurements of eye movements and visual performance (para 35-38, 45-46).
Regarding Claim 17. Ke disclosed the method of Claim 1, further comprising: establishing baseline eye fatigue levels for the user; comparing real-time eye tracking data to the baseline levels; and initiating visual complexity adjustments when deviations from the baseline exceed predetermined thresholds (para 32-33, 35-41, 45-46).
Regarding Claim 19. Ke disclosed a system for implementing a virtual reality (VR) system that adjusts visual complexity based on real-time eye fatigue monitoring, comprising:
a head-mounted display (Fig 1A; para 20, 34-34);
eye-tracking sensors (para 10, 12, 14-15, 20, 27-28);
one or more processors (Abstract); and
memory (para 16) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (para 10-11);
rendering the VR user interface on the VR headset (para 10-12);
continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking technology, user eye movements and behavior (Abstract, para 11-12, 23); and
dynamically adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on detected eye fatigue levels (Abstract, para 12, 17-18, 21-22, 26, 42-44, 50).
Regarding Claim 20. Ke disclosed a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with a head-mounted display (Fig 1A; para 20, 34-34) and eye-tracking sensors (para 10, 12, 14-15, 20, 27-28), the one or more programs including instructions for:
generating a VR user interface corresponding to a three-dimensional virtual environment (para 10-11); rendering the VR user interface on the VR headset (para 10-12);
continuously monitoring, using the eye-tracking technology, user eye movements and behavior (Abstract, para 11-12, 23); and
dynamically adjusting the visual complexity of the VR user interface based on detected eye fatigue levels (Abstract, para 12, 17-18, 21-22, 26, 42-44, 50).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke et al., US 20250190051 (Ke) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Mihali et al., US 20240164698 (Mihali)
Regarding Claim 2. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the eye-tracking sensors comprise infrared cameras (para 15), but failed to disclose with a sampling rate of 200 Hz or higher and sub-degree precision in tracking gaze direction with latency under 10 ms.
However, Mihali discloses that when it comes to head-mounted displays (Fig 1A), such HMDs can have eye tracking systems with that can have a sampling rate of approximately 200hz as it would provide for providing accurate eye tracking for determining eye fatigue (para 233, 269).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sampling rates of Mihali with Ke as it would provide accurate eye-tracking as taught by Mihali.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke et al., US 20250190051 (Ke) as applied to claims above, and further in view of DeCharms, US 20240273793 (DeCharms)
Regarding Claim 4. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein monitoring user eye movements and behavior and adjusting visual complexity occur in real-time with a latency of less than 100 milliseconds.
However, DeCharms discloses a system of that implement eye-tracking technology that is designed for reducing eye fatigue (para 298, 463, 466, 481), which entails adjusting context-based visual complexity being displayed to a user in real-time (para 77, 112, 122, 144, 273. Adjustment made in real-time is interpreted as instantaneous which is less than 100 milliseconds.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate DeCharms’ teachings with Ke as it would have provided context-based amelioration to eye fatigue as taught by DeCharms.
Regarding Claim 8. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein dynamically adjusting the visual complexity comprises reducing texture resolution, decreasing contrast, simplifying visual details, and dimming bright areas.
However, DeCharms discloses a system of that implement eye-tracking technology that is designed for reducing eye fatigue (para 298, 463, 466, 481), which entails adjusting context-based visual complexity being displayed to a user in real-time (para 177, 206, 267, 298, 463, 466, 472, 475, 481)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate DeCharms’ teachings with Ke as it would have provided context-based amelioration to eye fatigue as taught by DeCharms.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke et al., US 20250190051 (Ke) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lee et al., US 20220217325 (Lee)
Regarding Claim 12. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, but failed to disclose further comprising adjusting task complexity by reducing the number of simultaneous visual elements based on the detected eye fatigue.
However, Lee discloses that when it comes to determining eye fatigue, one aspect for reducing eye fatigue is to reduce the number of objects being displayed (para 120, 151, 155).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lee’s teachings with Ke because would enhance Ke’s invention as it would allow for the reduction of visual objects being displayed for combating eye fatigue as taught by Lee.
Regarding Claim 13. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, but failed to disclose further comprising using one or more algorithms for pattern recognition to detect signs of fatigue and visual scene simplification to gradually reduce visual complexity.
However, Lee discloses that when it comes to determining eye fatigue, one aspect for reducing eye fatigue is to reduce the number of objects being displayed (para 120, 151, 155. Reducing the number of objects is interpreted as reducing visual complexity).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lee’s teachings with Ke because would enhance Ke’s invention as it would allow for the reduction of visual objects being displayed for combating eye fatigue as taught by Lee.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke et al., US 20250190051 (Ke) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Reicher et al., US 20190043441 (Reicher)
Regarding Claim 14. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a comprehensive report on visual endurance, including insights on fatigue progression, optimal screen time recommendations, and personalized adjustments.
However, Reicher discloses that when it comes to determining eye fatigue, a comprehensive report can be provided to the user (para 36. The electronic processor 220 may also generate one or more reports based on the stored data representing adjustments, which may indicate how often adjustments were made, an impact of the adjustments (decreases in eye fatigue and impaired visual perception), or the like. For example, the electronic processor 220 may generate a report including benchmark data demonstrating how eye strain has been reduced as compared with users who have not implemented the method 300.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Reicher’s teachings with Ke as it would have provided a comprehensive report and benchmark data to the user for determining eye fatigue experienced by the user as taught by Reicher.
Claims 10-11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke et al., US 20250190051 (Ke) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cheung, US 20240286026 (Cheung)
Regarding Claim 10. Ke discloses the method of Claim 9, but failed to disclose wherein in a virtual classroom setting, adjustments comprise reducing text density, increasing line spacing, and simplifying background visuals.
However, Cheung discloses that when it comes to eye fatigue while wearing a head mounted display, when it is determined that a user is experiencing eye fatigue, text content can be reduced in size (para 48. In some implementations, the auto-tuning includes magnifying or reducing textual portion of the content or zooming-in/zooming-out image content. Additionally, based on where the user is looking and where the user should be looking, the eye gesture processing module can provide additional content or hints or cues or other accessibility feature to direct the user's attention to the area where the user should be looking.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cheung’s teachings with Ke because it can help further enhance Ke’s invention in preventing eye fatigue as taught by Cheung.
Regarding Claim 11. Ke discloses the method of Claim 9, but failed to disclose wherein in a gaming environment, adjustments comprise lowering texture resolution, reducing brightness and dynamic lighting effects, and smoothing or slowing down motion effects.
However, Cheung discloses that when it comes to eye fatigue while wearing a head mounted display, when it is determined that a user is experiencing eye fatigue, text content can be reduced in size (para 48. In some implementations, the auto-tuning includes magnifying or reducing textual portion of the content or zooming-in/zooming-out image content. Additionally, based on where the user is looking and where the user should be looking, the eye gesture processing module can provide additional content or hints or cues or other accessibility feature to direct the user's attention to the area where the user should be looking.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cheung’s teachings with Ke because it can help further enhance Ke’s invention in preventing eye fatigue as taught by Cheung.
Regarding Claim 16. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, but failed to disclose further comprising generating recommendations for optimal VR usage durations, including session limits, specific break intervals, and visual settings tailored to the user’s endurance profile.
However, Cheung discloses that when it comes to eye fatigue while wearing a head mounted display, when it is determined that a user is experiencing eye fatigue, recommendations can be provided to a user which could help prevent eye fatigue (para 78. If the blink rate goes above a certain level (e.g., >10% or 15%) and/or the pupil size increases or decreases by a certain amount (e.g., >10% or 15%), then the flag can be raised to the video game. In some embodiments, the flag can be raised to indicate to the video game that a certain eye strain metric is at an elevated level (e.g., rendering attributes, such as brightness, speed, resolution, etc.,) or needs to be adjusted (e.g., foveated region) or provide suggestions (e.g., instruct the user to take a break) to the user so as to reduce eye strain or to address the eye strain experienced by the user. In some embodiments, the suggestions are provided in a pop-up window. In some embodiments where the video game is a multi-player game, in addition to providing suggestions to the user, the video game can also provide additional warning or informational message to other users who are playing the video game with the user. For example, if the suggestion to the user is to take a break, then the video game can also provide an informational message to other users stating that the user is currently taking a break. In some embodiments, the suggestion or the warning/informational message may be provided with a count-down timer, wherein the count-down timer is used to determine when the gameplay of the video game is to be resumed. Additional warning or informational messages may be provided to the user and other users to let the user know when to get ready to resume gameplay and to state to the other users that the user is ready for gameplay after the break.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cheung’s teachings with Ke because such providing users with recommendations on how to prevent eye fatigue can help further enhance Ke’s invention in preventing eye fatigue as taught by Cheung.
Regarding Claim 18. Ke discloses the method of Claim 1, failed to disclose further comprising: allowing user input to fine-tune the sensitivity of fatigue detection and the degree of visual adjustments; storing user preferences for future VR sessions; and adapting the system’s response to eye fatigue based on accumulated user data over multiple sessions.
However, Cheung discloses that when it comes to head mounted display in which users experience eye fatigue, user preferences can be provided for alleviating such eye fatigue (para 67. The calibration of the eye strain for the user is user-specific as it is computed based on the user's vision characteristics, and the user's preferences and customizations of the game content. Further, the calibration takes into consideration the weight assigned to each eye strain indicator, wherein the assigned weight is adjusted to reflect the time when the eye strain indicator was detected and the amount of time the user was engaged in interacting with the content. In this case, user preferences are interpreted as users being able to make an input with regard to preferences which would therefore be used for alleviating eye fatigue.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cheung’s teachings with Ke because it can provide user preferences for alleviating eye fatigue as taught by Cheung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights