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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on 12/01/2024, 02/12/2025, and 12/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the Examiner.
Additionally, one of the information disclosure statements filed 12/01/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the missing information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, cited non-patent literature publication No. 3 (“George B Arfken: "Mathematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide" In: "Mathematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide", 1 January 2013 (2013-01-01), Elsevier, XP093159030, ISBN: 978-0-12-384654-9 pages 195-196”) has not been submitted.
The Examiner also notes that due to the exceedingly large information disclosure statement(s) being filed, the examiner respectfully requests that applicant provide a concise explanation of relevance of how each document cited is relevant to the application and claims in order to expedite prosecution as applicant has reviewed the documents and is in the best position to explain how the documents are relevant.
See MPEP 2004 section 13 which states, “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)”.
By initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, or by not striking through the cited reference, the Examiner is acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that a cursory review has been made of the cited references.
Further, it should be noted that an applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his experience and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [ 220 USPQ 289 ] (Fed. Cir.1983), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; see Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. FI. 1972).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,359 in view of Lee et al. (US Patent 9,813,615), Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2017/0359494), Corephotonics (WO 2015/015383), and Corephotonics (WO 2014/199338). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 11:
Application
Patent 12,200,359
Claim 1
Claims 9 & 10
1. A method comprising:
providing a dual-aperture camera that includes a first camera with a first image sensor operation rate, the first camera operative to output a first stream of frames, and
a second camera comprising a second image sensor with a second image sensor operation rate, the second camera operative to output a second stream of frames;
synchronizing in time operation of the first camera and of the first image sensor with operation of the second camera and of the second image sensor such that one image sensor operates at a full operation rate and another image sensor operates at a partial operation rate that is a fraction of the full operational rate; and
9. A method, comprising:
providing a dual-aperture camera that includes a first camera operative to output a respective first stream of frames and
a second camera operative to output a respective second stream of frames; and
operating the first camera in a fully operational mode and operating the second camera in a partially operational mode according to a smooth transition library, wherein a frame rate received from the smooth transition library of the second stream of frames is an integer divisor of a frame rate received from the smooth transition library of the first stream of frames, …
synchronizing the first and second streams of frames at a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein each frame of the second stream of frames is synchronized in time with one of the frames of the first stream of frames.
Claim 4
Claim 10
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting a synchronized pair of frames having a frame from the first stream of frames and a frame from the second stream of frames.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein each frame of the second stream of frames is synchronized in time with one of the frames of the first stream of frames.
Claim 11
Claim 9
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising using a smooth transition library for providing an instruction used for synchronizing in time the operation of the first and second cameras and of the first and second image sensors.
9. … operating the first camera in a fully operational mode and operating the second camera in a partially operational mode according to a smooth transition library, wherein a frame rate received from the smooth transition library of the second stream of frames is an integer divisor of a frame rate received from the smooth transition library of the first stream of frames, …
In view of the foregoing, claims 1, 4, and 11 of the pending application are an obvious variant and encompassed by claims 9-10 of US Patent 12,200,359.
Regarding claims 2-3:
With respect to claims 2-3, these claims further include limitation that “the frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate is in a range of 30 frames per second to 60 frames per second”, and “a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a partial operation rate is in a range of 5 frames per second to 10 frames per second”.
In analogous art, Lee et al. (US Patent 9,813,615) discloses an imaging device having plural cameras with different frame rates, including a first that operates at a full operation rate is in a range of 30 frames per second to 60 frames per second, and a second that operates at a partial operation rate is in a range of 5 frames per second to 10 frames per second (column 13, lines 41-46, and figure 7: “Camera 1” and “Camera 3”). Lee teaches that the use of the frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate is in a range of 30 frames per second to 60 frames per second, and a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a partial operation rate is in a range of 5 frames per second to 10 frames per second, is preferred in order to synchronize the images such that the timings of the images are identical, to improve image synthesis results (column 13, line 41 – column 14, line 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate is in a range of 30 frames per second to 60 frames per second, and a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a partial operation rate is in a range of 5 frames per second to 10 frames per second, in order to synchronize the images such that the timings of the images are identical, to improve image synthesis results as suggested by Lee.
Regarding claims 5-6:
With respect to claims 5-6, these claims further include limitation that “the first image sensor is associated with a first field of view (FOV) and wherein the second image sensor is associated with a second FOV that is narrower than the first FOV”, and/or “the first image sensor is associated with a first field of view (FOV) and wherein the second image sensor is associated with a second FOV that is wider than the first FOV”.
In analogous art, Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2017/0359494) discloses an imaging device having plural cameras, each with a different field of view (paragraphs 0014, 0019-0021, 0027, 0033-0034). Zhou teaches that the use of cameras having two different fields of view is preferred in order to allow the user to select between the two views having different focal lengths and/or levels of zoom (paragraphs 0019, 0027, 0033-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, such that the first image sensor is associated with a first field of view (FOV) and wherein the second image sensor is associated with a second FOV that is narrower than the first FOV, and/or the first image sensor is associated with a first field of view (FOV) and wherein the second image sensor is associated with a second FOV that is wider than the first FOV, in order to in order to allow the user to select between the two views having different focal lengths and/or levels of zoom, as suggested by Zhou.
Regarding claims 7-8:
With respect to claims 7-8, these claims further include limitation that “the first image sensor is a color image sensor and wherein the second image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor”, and/or “first image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor and wherein the second image sensor is a color image sensor”.
In analogous art, Corephotonics (WO 2015/015383) discloses the use of a dual aperture imaging system, which includes a first image sensor that is a color image sensor and a second image sensor that is a monochromatic image sensor (page 7, lines 11-18, page 8, lines 23-29, page 10, lines 3-9, and figure 3: “Sensor 1”, “Sensor 2”). Corephotonics ‘383 teaches that a first image sensor that is a color image sensor and a second image sensor that is a monochromatic image sensor is preferred in order to generate a fused image having an increase in SNR (page 7, lines 11-18, page 8, lines 23-29, page 10, lines 3-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that a first image sensor is a color image sensor and a second image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor in order to generate a fused image having an increase in SNR, as suggested by Corephotonics ‘383.
Regarding claims 9-10:
With respect to claims 9-10, these claims further include limitation that “the synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor”, and “the configuring the respective vertical blanking time includes increasing or decreasing the vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and the second image sensor”.
In analogous art, Corephotonics (WO 2014/199338) discloses a dual aperture imaging system, which includes synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor, which includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor (page 10, lines 4-19), and that configuring the respective vertical blanking time includes increasing or decreasing the vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and the second image sensor (page 10, lines 4-19; in order to remove any delay between the vertical blanking of each image sensor, with respect to one another, the blanking time is considered to be increased or decreased so that they are identical to one another). Corephotonics ‘338 teaches that synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor, which includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor is preferred in order to ensure that the same points of the object in each view oar obtained simultaneously (page 10, lines 4-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor, includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor, in order to ensure that the same points of the object in each view oar obtained simultaneously, as suggested by Corephotonics ‘338.
Regarding claims 12-15:
With respect to claims 12-15, these claims further include limitation that “the method is performed by a host device”, and “the host device is a cellular telephone”. The Examiner notes that the use of a host device such as a cellular telephone having an integrated imaging system are well known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the method being performed by a host device such as a cellular telephone in order to meet the increasing consumer demand for cellular phones having an integrated imaging system.
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 1-6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2017/0359494), in view of Lee et al. (US Patent 9,813,615).
In regard to claim 1, note Zhou discloses a method comprising providing a dual-aperture camera that includes a first camera with a first image sensor operation rate, the first camera operative to output a first stream of frames (paragraphs 0014, 0022, 0024, and figure 1: 110, 114, 140; camera 110 includes image sensor 114 which is coupled to processing system 140, which is operative to output a first stream of frames), and a second camera comprising a second image sensor with a second image sensor operation rate, the second camera operative to output a second stream of frames (paragraphs 0014, 0022, 0024, and figure 1: 120, 124, 140; camera 120 includes image sensor 124 which is coupled to processing system 140, which is operative to output a second stream of frames), synchronizing in time operation of the first camera and of the first image sensor with operation of the second camera and of the second image sensor such that one image sensor operates at a full operation rate and another image sensor operates at a partial operation rate that is a fraction of the full operational rate (paragraph 0014, 0019-0023, 0032, 0036, and figure 1: 130; the capture control system controls which camera is set as the primary, i.e., fully operational frame rate, and which camera is set as the secondary, i.e., partially operational frame rate, wherein either camera can be selected as the primary, and the other is selected as the secondary that operates at a fractional rate).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose synchronizing the first and second streams of frames at a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate.
In analogous art, Lee discloses a dual aperture imaging system which performs synchronization in time operation of the first camera in a fully operational mode and the second camera in a partially operational mode, and synchronizes the first and second streams of frames at a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate (column 14, lines 6-21, column 15, lines 9-22, column 16, lines 24-32, figure 7: “Camera 1” & “Camera 3”, and figure 9: 140). Lee teaches that the synchronizing the first and second streams of frames at a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate is preferred in order to ensure that the images are captured with identical timing, and thereby prevent the generation of unclear synthesized images (column 11, lines 39-55, column 14, lines 6-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include synchronizing the first and second streams of frames at a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate, in order to ensure that the images are captured with identical timing, and thereby prevent the generation of unclear synthesized images, as suggested by Lee.
In regard to claim 2, note Lee discloses that the frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a full operation rate is in a range of 30 frames per second to 60 frames per second (column 13, lines 41-46, and figure 7: “Camera 1”).
In regard to claim 3, note Lee discloses that a frame rate of the image sensor that operates at a partial operation rate is in a range of 5 frames per second to 10 frames per second (column 13, lines 41-46, and figure 7: “Camera 3”).
In regard to claim 4, note Lee discloses outputting a synchronized pair of frames having a frame from the first stream of frames and a frame from the second stream of frames (column 13, lines 41-46, and figure 7: “Camera 1”, “Camera 3”, 620; the synchronized pair of frames are output at 620).
In regard to claim 5, note Zhou discloses that the first image sensor is associated with a first field of view (FOV) and wherein the second image sensor is associated with a second FOV that is narrower than the first FOV (paragraphs 0014, 0019-0021; camera 110 has a smaller FOV than camera 120, therefore, when camera 120 is set as the first, fully operational camera, and camera 110 is set as the second, partially operational camera, the second camera, i.e., camera 110 has a narrower FOV).
In regard to claim 6, note Zhou discloses that the first image sensor is associated with a first field of view (FOV) and wherein the second image sensor is associated with a second FOV that is wider than the first FOV (paragraphs 0014, 0019-0021; camera 110 has a smaller FOV than camera 120, therefore, when camera 110 is set as the first, fully operational camera, and camera 120 is set as the second, partially operational camera, the second camera, i.e., camera 120 has a wider FOV).
In regard to claim 12, note Zhou discloses that the method is performed by a host device (paragraphs 0003, 0013).
In regard to claim 14, note Zhou discloses that the host device is a cellular telephone (paragraphs 0003, 0013).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2017/0359494), in view of Lee et al. (US Patent 9,813,615), and further in view of Corephotonics (WO 2015/015383 – hereinafter referred to as Corephotonics ‘383)
In regard to claim 7, note the primary reference of Zhou in view of Lee discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the first image sensor is a color image sensor and wherein the second image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor.
In analogous art, Corephotonics ‘383 discloses the use of a dual aperture imaging system, which includes a first image sensor that is a color image sensor and a second image sensor that is a monochromatic image sensor (page 7, lines 11-18, page 8, lines 23-29, page 10, lines 3-9, and figure 3: “Sensor 1”, “Sensor 2”). Corephotonics ‘383 teaches that a first image sensor that is a color image sensor and a second image sensor that is a monochromatic image sensor is preferred in order to generate a fused image having an increase in SNR (page 7, lines 11-18, page 8, lines 23-29, page 10, lines 3-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that a first image sensor is a color image sensor and a second image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor in order to generate a fused image having an increase in SNR, as suggested by Corephotonics ‘383. Additionally, based on the combination of the primary reference and Corephotonics ‘383, since the primary reference of Zhou can set either camera as the first, fully operational camera, and the other camera as the secondary, partially operational camera, the first camera can be set as the image sensor that is a color.
In regard to claim 8, note the primary reference of Zhou in view of Lee discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that first image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor and wherein the second image sensor is a color image sensor.
In analogous art, Corephotonics ‘383 discloses the use of a dual aperture imaging system, which includes a first image sensor that is a color image sensor and a second image sensor that is a monochromatic image sensor (page 7, lines 11-18, page 8, lines 23-29, page 10, lines 3-9, and figure 3: “Sensor 1”, “Sensor 2”). Corephotonics ‘383 teaches that a first image sensor that is a color image sensor and a second image sensor that is a monochromatic image sensor is preferred in order to generate a fused image having an increase in SNR (page 7, lines 11-18, page 8, lines 23-29, page 10, lines 3-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that a first image sensor is a color image sensor and a second image sensor is a monochromatic image sensor in order to generate a fused image having an increase in SNR, as suggested by Corephotonics ‘383. Additionally, based on the combination of the primary reference and Corephotonics ‘383, since the primary reference of Zhou can set either camera as the first, fully operational camera, and the other camera as the secondary, partially operational camera, the first camera can be set as the image sensor that is a monochromatic.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2017/0359494), in view of Lee et al. (US Patent 9,813,615), and further in view of Corephotonics (WO 2014/199338 – hereinafter referred to as Corephotonics ‘338).
In regard to claim 9, note the primary reference of Zhou in view of Lee discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor.
In analogous art, Corephotonics ‘338 discloses a dual aperture imaging system, which includes synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor, which includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor (page 10, lines 4-19). Corephotonics ‘338 teaches that synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor, which includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor is preferred in order to ensure that the same points of the object in each view oar obtained simultaneously (page 10, lines 4-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that synchronizing in time operation of the first image sensor with operation of the second image sensor, includes configuring a respective vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and of the second image sensor, in order to ensure that the same points of the object in each view oar obtained simultaneously, as suggested by Corephotonics ‘338.
In regard to claim 10, note Corephotonics ‘338 discloses that configuring the respective vertical blanking time includes increasing or decreasing the vertical blanking time of the first image sensor and the second image sensor (page 10, lines 4-19; in order to remove any delay between the vertical blanking of each image sensor, with respect to one another, the blanking time is considered to be increased or decreased so that they are identical to one another).
In regard to claim 11, note the primary reference of Zhou in view of Lee discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose using a smooth transition library for providing an instruction used for synchronizing in time the operation of the first and second cameras and of the first and second image sensors
In analogous art, Corephotonics ‘338 discloses the use of a dual aperture imaging system, which includes the use of a smooth transition library for providing an instruction used for synchronizing in time the operation of the first and second cameras and of the first and second image sensors (page 13, line 30 – page 14, line 8). Corephotonics ‘338 teaches that the use of smooth transition library for providing an instruction used for synchronizing in time the operation of the first and second cameras and of the first and second image sensors is preferred in order to minimize the jump effect that occurs when switching between cameras (page 13, line 30 – page 14, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include the use of a smooth transition library for providing an instruction used for synchronizing in time the operation of the first and second cameras and of the first and second image sensors, in order to minimize the jump effect that occurs when switching between cameras, as suggested by Corephotonics ‘338.
In regard to claim 13, note Zhou discloses that the method is performed by a host device (paragraphs 0003, 0013).
In regard to claim 15, note Zhou discloses that the host device is a cellular telephone (paragraphs 0003, 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lin Ye can be reached at (571) 272-7372. 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.
/CHRISS S YODER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights