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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,010. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims. Claims 2-21 of the patent are anticipated by patent claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12, in that claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 2-21 of the instant application. Claims 2-21 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application 19/019,986
U.S. Patent 12,272,010
2. A method, comprising: identifying features associated with a real-world object in a video feed during an augmented reality (AR) session initiation within a physical environment that includes the real-world object;
1. A method, comprising: identifying a feature associated with a real-world object in a video of an Augmented Reality (AR) application (app) during AR session initiation of the AR app within a physical environment that includes the real-world object; maintaining pixel coordinates for the feature within the video; wherein maintaining the pixel coordinates further includes:
maintaining coordinates for the features within the video feed;
maintaining the pixel coordinates for the feature and additional pixel coordinates for additional features of the real-world object in a two-dimensional (2D) array;
maintaining dimensions of the features based on a model comprising dimensions of the real-world object; and
maintaining sizes and dimensions of the feature based on a model that comprises sizes and dimensions of the real-world object; wherein maintaining the sizes further includes: maintaining the sizes and dimensions for the feature and additional sizes and dimensions for the additional features of the real-world object in a three-dimensional (3D) array; and
estimating a position and orientation of the real-world object depicted in the video feed based on the coordinates and dimensions.
estimating a position and an orientation of the real-world object as depicted in the video based on the pixel coordinates, the sizes of the feature, and the dimensions of the feature; wherein estimating further includes: obtaining intrinsic camera parameters for a camera that is supplying the video from the AR app; and wherein estimating further includes processing a Perspective-n-Point algorithm using the 2D array, the 3D array, and the intrinsic camera parameters to estimate the position and the orientation of the real-world object within the video.
The above table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application and the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,272,010. The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between the claims of the instant application to U.S. Patent 12,272,010.
Claims of Instant Application
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Claims of U.S. Patent 12,272,010
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
7
7
7
12
10
7
7
8
7, 1, 6
7, 12, 1, 4
7
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A 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(s) 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) and further in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Unnikrishnan discloses a method, comprising: identifying features associated with a real-world object in a video feed during an augmented reality (AR) session initiation within a physical environment that includes the real-world object; (Paragraph 0041, augmented reality tracking system that begins to track vehicles from received images, paragraph 0055, including wheel keypoints as features, paragraph 0056) maintaining coordinates for the features within the video feed; (Paragraphs 0069-0070, wheel keypoint positions as pixel positions). Unnikrishnan does not clearly disclose maintaining dimensions of the features based on a model comprising dimensions of the real-world object. Ueda discloses a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of components of a device from CAD data (Paragraphs 0125-0126). Ueda’s technique of obtaining a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of a device from CAD data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable the tracked vehicles with wheels of Unnikrishnan and the results would have been predictable in obtaining a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of wheels and a tracked vehicle. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda further discloses estimating a position and orientation of the real-world object depicted in the video feed based on the coordinates (Unnikrishnan, paragraph 0069, estimating position and orientation of the vehicles based on the keypoint positions). Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda does not clearly disclose estimating a position and orientation of the real-world object depicted in the video feed based on the dimensions. Havnor discloses deriving the position and orientation of a vehicle in an image based on known sizes and lengths (Paragraph 0020). Havnor’s technique of deriving the position and orientation of a vehicle in an image based on known sizes and lengths would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the estimation of a position and an orientation of tracked vehicles with known sizes and dimensions of components from CAD data for the vehicles of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and the results would have been predictable in the further deriving of the position and orientation of tracked vehicles in images using known sizes and lengths of components from CAD data. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Unnikrishnan discloses wherein identifying further includes selecting the features from known features associated with the real-world object (Paragraph 0040, identifying wheels of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Hanover discloses wherein estimating further includes obtaining camera parameters for a camera providing the video feed (Paragraph 0020, known properties of a camera).
Regarding claim 12, Ueda discloses wherein the model is a computer-aided design (CAD) model (Paragraphs 0125-0126, sizes and dimensions of components from CAD data).
Regarding claim 13, Unnikrishnan discloses a method, comprising: receiving a video feed of a physical environment during an augmented reality (AR) session that is initiation; (Paragraph 0041, augmented reality tracking system that begins to track vehicles from received images) detecting features of the real-world object from the video feed; (Paragraph 0056, multiple wheel keypoints of the vehicle). Unnikrishnan does not clearly disclose obtaining a model for a real-world object located within the physical environment. Ueda discloses a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of components of a device from CAD data (Paragraphs 0125-0126). Ueda’s technique of obtaining a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of a device from CAD data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable the tracked vehicles with wheels of Unnikrishnan and the results would have been predictable in obtaining a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of wheels and a tracked vehicle. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda further disclose mapping screen positions of the features to model dimensions; (Unnikrishnan, paragraphs 0069-0070, wheel keypoint positions as pixel positions that can be displayed with the CAD data, Ueda, paragraph 0125 where the display of the CAD data can be sized with the keypoint positions to be displayed at pixel locations on screen) Unnikrishnan further discloses estimating position and orientation of the vehicles based on the keypoint positions (Paragraph 0069). Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda does not clearly disclose resolving a pose of the real-world object within the video feed based on the mapping. Havnor discloses deriving the position and orientation of a vehicle in an image based on known sizes and lengths (Paragraph 0020). Havnor’s technique of deriving the position and orientation of a vehicle in an image based on known sizes and lengths would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the estimation of a position and an orientation of tracked vehicles with known sizes and dimensions of components from CAD data having corresponding screen coordinates for the vehicles of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and the results would have been predictable in the further deriving of the position and orientation of tracked vehicles in images using known sizes and lengths of components from CAD data having corresponding screen coordinates. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Unnikrishnan discloses wherein detecting further includes identifying the features based on visual attributes detected in the video feed. (Paragraph 0070, multiple detected wheels).
Regarding claim 17, Havnor discloses wherein resolving further includes using intrinsic parameters of a camera capturing the video feed (Paragraph 0020, known properties of a camera).
Regarding claim 19, Unnikrishnan discloses wherein the real-world object is a composite object comprising multiple components (Paragraph 0056, wheel keypoints of a vehicle).
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1) and further in view of Oilmann (US 7,511,722 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor does not clearly disclose wherein maintaining the coordinates further includes maintaining pixel coordinates for the features in a two-dimensional (2D) array.
Oilmann discloses storing of pixel coordinates in two-dimensional arrays (Column 1, lines 12-17). Oilmann’s technique of storing pixel coordinates in two-dimensional arrays would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the pixel positions for wheel keypoints of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor and the results would have been predictable in the storing of pixel positions in two-dimensional arrays for wheel keypoints. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1) and further in view of Gao (US 2015/0177414 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor does not clearly disclose wherein maintaining the dimensions further includes maintaining the dimensions for the features in a three-dimensional (3D) array. Gao discloses that arrays can be multi-dimensional, including three dimensions, for storing data (Paragraph 0065). Gao’s technique of using arrays with at least three dimensions to store data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the three-dimensional data of components of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor and the results would have been predictable in the storing of three-dimensional data of components in an array with at least three-dimensions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1) in view of Gao (US 2015/0177414 A1) and further in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda in view of Havnor and further in view of Gao discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 6. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda in view of Havnor and further in view of Gao does not clearly disclose wherein estimating further includes processing a Perspective-n-Point algorithm using the coordinates, dimensions, and camera parameters. Birchfield discloses using a PnP algorithm for estimating a 3D pose and orientation of an object relative to a camera using object coordinates and relative dimension and the camera intrinsics (Paragraph 0091). Birchfield’s technique of using a PnP algorithm for estimating a 3D pose and orientation of an object relative to a camera using object coordinates and relative dimension and the camera intrinsics would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the tracked locations and dimensions of an object as well as camera parameters of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda in view of Havnor and further in view of Gao and the results would have been predictable in using a PnP algorithm for estimating a 3D pose and orientation of an object relative to a camera using locations and dimensions as well as camera parameters. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1) and further in view of Buerli et al. (US 2021/0327146 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor does not clearly disclose tracking and updating the position and orientation of the real-world object within the video feed during the AR session.
Buerli discloses tracking the position and orientation of a real-world object for anchoring a virtual object to (Paragraph 0044). Buerli’s technique of tracking the position and orientation of a real-world object for anchoring a virtual object to would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the estimation of a position and orientation of a tracked vehicle and the results would have bene predictable in the anchoring a virtual object to a tracked vehicle using its estimated position and orientation. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Buerli discloses tracking and updating positions and orientations of AR-generated objects superimposed within the video feed relative to the position and orientation of the real-world object (Paragraph 0044, tracking the position and orientation of a real-world object for anchoring a virtual object to).
Regarding claim 10, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor does not clearly disclose providing the method through an application programming interface to an AR application. Buerli discloses obtaining anchoring information using an application programming interface of anchoring virtual objects to real-world objects in extended reality (Paragraph 0039 and 0044). Buerli’s technique of using an application programming interface for anchoring virtual objects to real-world objects in extended reality would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the augmented reality tracking system of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor and the results would have been predictable in the obtaining of anchoring information using an application programming interface for anchoring virtual objects to real-world objects tracked in augmented reality. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1) and further in view of Wurmfeld et al. (US 2021/0335046 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 2. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor does not clearly disclose wherein the real-world object is a transaction terminal. Wurmfeld discloses identifying an ATM in augmented reality for performing tasks (Abstract). Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses tracking of features real-world objects, such as vehicles, in augmented reality which differed from the claimed method by the substitution of a real-world object of a transaction terminal. Wurmfeld discloses the substituted tracking of a real-world object of an ATM. As a result, both functions were known in the art to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to track real-world objects. an ATM and its features in augmented reality. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor’s real-world object of a vehicle for tracking its features could have been substituted with Wurmfeld’s real-world object of an ATM and the results would have been predictable, resulting in the tracking of features of a real-world ATM in augmented reality. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) in view of Havnor et al. (US 2020/0175272 A1) and further in view of Haddick et al. (US 2013/0127980 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 13. Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor does not clearly disclose wherein obtaining further includes accessing the model as a cloud-based service. Haddick discloses providing the method as a cloud-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) to the AR app. Haddick discloses an augmented reality device that can be adapted to be used in a cloud environment with software as a service (SaaS) features (Paragraph 1295). Haddick’s technique of adapting an augmented reality device to be used in a cloud environment with SaaS features would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the augmented reality tracking system of Unnikrishnan in view of Ueda and further in view of Havnor and the results would have been predictable in an augmented reality tracking systems implemented as a SaaS as a feature for a cloud environment. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerli et al. (US 2021/0327146 A1) in view of Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) and further in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Buerli discloses a system, comprising: a cloud comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; (Paragraphs 0032 and 0073, servers of a cloud computing implementation that has memory that can store software and has processors) the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions; the executable instructions when executed by the at least one processor from the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (Paragraph 0075, instructions stored in ROM) providing an application programming interface (API) to an augmented reality (AR) application; (Paragraph 0039 and 0044, anchoring information using an application programming interface of anchoring virtual objects to real-world objects in extended reality) and interacting with an AR application through the API to provide AR session initialization (Paragraph 0039, run-time execution) Buerli does not clearly disclose AR session tracking from a video feed based on detected features in the video feed for the real-world object located within a physical environment during an AR session. Unnikrishnan discloses tracking vehicles in augmented reality from received images, including wheel keypoints as features (Paragraphs 0041, 0055 and 0056). Unnikrishnan’s technique of tracking vehicles in augmented reality from received images, including wheel keypoints as features would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the API for anchoring virtual objects to real-world objects in extended reality of Buerli and the results would have been predictable in an API for anchoring virtual objects to tracked vehicles in received images during an augmented reality session. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unnikrishnan in view of Buerli does not clearly disclose maintaining a model for a real-world object.
Ueda discloses a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of components of a device from CAD model data (Paragraphs 0125-0126). Ueda’s technique of obtaining a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of a device from CAD model data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable the tracked vehicles with wheels of Unnikrishnan and the results would have been predictable in obtaining a dimension table with the sizes and dimensions of CAD models of wheels and a tracked vehicle. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerli et al. (US 2021/0327146 A1) in view of Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2023/0087261 A1) and further in view of Ueda et al. (US 2005/0083328 A1) and further in view of Wurmfeld et al. (US 2021/0335046 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Buerli in view of Unnikrishnan and further in view of Ueda discloses all limitation as discussed in claim 20. Buerli in view of Unnikrishnan and further in view of Ueda does not clearly disclose wherein the real-world object is selected from: a point-of-sale terminal, a self-service terminal, an automated teller machine, and a kiosk. Wurmfeld discloses identifying an ATM in augmented reality for performing tasks (Abstract). Buerli in view of Unnikrishnan and further in view of Ueda discloses tracking of features real-world objects, such as vehicles, in augmented reality which differed from the claimed method by the substitution of a real-world object of a transaction terminal. Wurmfeld discloses the substituted tracking of a real-world object of an ATM. As a result, both functions were known in the art to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to track real-world objects. an ATM and its features in augmented reality. Buerli in view of Unnikrishnan and further in view of Ueda’s real-world object of a vehicle for tracking its features could have been substituted with Wurmfeld’s real-world object of an ATM and the results would have been predictable, resulting in the tracking of features of a real-world ATM in augmented reality. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liao et al. (US 9,157,757 B1) discloses computing a position and orientation of an object relative to another using a Perspective-n-Point method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights