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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “at at.” 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 4-8 and 17-19 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.
Claims 4 and 17 recite, “determining a third vector that is normal to the first vector and furthest from the second vector; determining a fourth vector that is normal to the second vector and furthest from the first vector.” The claimed “furthest” is a relative term. However, it is unclear how to determine a vector is “furthest” from another vector without any clear context.
The Specification does provide some example, and “furthest” is determined by comparing two vectors which is different from claimed scenario. The specification states:
[0053] In some examples, the shader is configured to determine which normal vector of the third normal vector 312a and the fourth normal vector 312b is directed outwardly away from the content item 300. In some examples, the shader may determine which normal vector of the third normal vector 312a and the fourth normal vector 312b is furthest from an adjacent tangent vector (e.g., an adjacent tangent vector that shares a vertex with the bi-tangent vector upon which the normal vectors are based). For example, the shader may determine which normal vector of the third normal vector 312a and the fourth normal vector 312b is furthest from the first tangent vector 304a (which starts from the first vertex 302a as does the first bi-tangent vector 306a upon with the third normal vector 312a and the fourth normal vector 312b are based).
Claims 5-8 and 18-19 are rejected because of their dependence on Claim 4 or 17.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to “A method, comprising . . .,” which is a process, thereby meeting step 1. The claim recites:
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper:
determining a first set of vertices associated with edges of a content item;
determining a second set of vertices offset from the first set of vertices, wherein the offset is determined based on a distance;
determining a boundary around the content item including all of the second set of vertices; and
applying a transitional effect between the boundary and the edges of the content item.
[BRI on the record] With respect to “applying a transitional effect,” it includes adding vertices or drawing transition regions, which could be categorized as a mathematical concept and/or a mental concept with assistance of pen and paper. This interpretation is consistent with the specification:
[0011] Figure 4 illustrates a block diagram for determining additional mesh vertices for creating various transitional effects for planar content at the first perspective in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure.
[0013] Figure 6 illustrates a block diagram for determining additional mesh vertices for creating various transitional effects for planar content at the second perspective in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
600
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Here, Figs. 2C and 4 are example of claimed invention, which shows that they are simple enough to be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
All these limitations recite the mathematical concept of an geometric mathematical concept of determining and creation relationships between two primitives.
All these limitations also recite a mental process that can be performed by using a pen and paper. Applicant’s figs. 2C and 4 support the Examiner’s determination.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The following additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(a) “at a processor”
Regarding (a), the processor, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Additional elements are determined not to amount to an inventive concept after having considered them both individually and in combination; and the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
(a) “at a processor”
Regarding (a), the processor, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-13
Step 1: Claims 2-13 depend on Claim 1 and are directed to the “method,” which is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: these claims recite a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper:
Claim 2. determining the distance based on a first distance from a center of the content item to a first vertex of the first set of vertices.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 3. determining the distance based on a second distance from a center of the content item to a first edge of the edges of the content item.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 4. wherein determining the second set of vertices comprises: for each respective first vertex of the first set of vertices: determining a first vector starting at the respective first vertex and extending along a first side of the content item; determining a second vector starting at the respective first vertex and extending along a second side of the content item; determining a third vector that is normal to the first vector and furthest from the second vector; determining a fourth vector that is normal to the second vector and furthest from the first vector; and determining a plurality of vertices offset the distance away from the first set of vertices and along the respective third vectors and fourth vectors.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 5. wherein determining the second set of vertices further comprises: determining a fifth vector extending parallel with the first side of the content item and intersecting at least one respective third vector at at least one second vertex of the second set of vertices; determining a sixth vector extending parallel with the second side of the content item and intersecting at least one respective fourth vector at at least one third vertex of the second set of vertices; and determining a point of intersection between the fifth vector and the sixth vector.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 6. selecting the point of intersection as one of the second set of vertices.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 7. wherein determining the second set of vertices further comprises: determining that a third distance between the point of intersection and the respective first vertex exceeds the distance by a threshold amount; determining a seventh vector starting from the respective first vertex and extending to the point of intersection; determining a fourth vertex offset the distance away from the respective first vertex and along the seventh vector; and selecting the fourth vertex as one of the second set of vertices.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 8. wherein determining the second set of vertices further comprises: determining a first angle between the fifth vector and the sixth vector is less than a threshold; determining an eighth vector starting from the respective first vertex and extending to the point of intersection; determining a point on the eighth vector where a second angle between a ninth vector starting at the point and extending towards a first vertex of the plurality of vertices and a tenth vector starting at the point and extending towards a second vertex of the plurality of vertices exceeds the threshold; and selecting the point as one of the second set of vertices.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 9. wherein applying the transitional effect between the boundary and the edges of the content item causes portions of other content items in a vicinity of the content item to become transparent.
a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
[BRI on the record] With respect to applying the “transitional effect,” BRI of the limitation include removing and/or adding vertices or drawing or modifying transition regions, which could be categorized as a mathematical concept and/or a mental concept with assistance of pen and paper. This interpretation is consistent with the specification. Spec. ¶¶ 11, 13; Figs. 2C and 4.
Here, Figs. 2C and 4 are example of claimed invention, which shows that they are simple enough to be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 10. wherein applying the transitional effect between the boundary and the edges of the content item comprises applying a gradient effect that extends outwardly from the edges of the content item towards the boundary, and causes portions of other content items in a vicinity of the content item to become transparent according to the gradient effect.
“mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Here, Figs. 2C could be an example of claimed invention, which shows that they are simple enough to be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 11. wherein the first set of vertices associated with the edges of the content item correspond to a first perspective of the content item, and wherein the boundary is a first boundary, the method further comprising: determining a perspective change associated with the content item; discarding the first set of vertices and the first boundary; determining a third set of vertices associated with edges of a content item from a new perspective; determining a fourth set of vertices offset from the third set of vertices, wherein the offset is determined based on the distance; and determining a second boundary around the content item including all of the fourth set of vertices.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the transitional effect is a first transitional effect, the method further comprising: ceasing application of the first transitional effect; and applying a second transitional effect between the second boundary and the edges of the content item.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
[BRI on the record] With respect to ceasing of the “first transitional effect” and applying “a second transitional effect” include removing and/or adding vertices or drawing or modifying transition regions, which could be categorized as a mathematical concept and/or a mental concept with assistance of pen and paper. This interpretation is consistent with the specification. Spec. ¶¶ 11, 13; Figs. 2C and 4.
Here, Figs. 2C and 4 are example of claimed invention, which shows that they are simple enough to be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the edges of the content item are determined based on an occluder mesh associated with the content item.
a “mathematical concept” or a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: No new additional elements.
Claims 14-19
Claim 14-19 are substantially similar to Claims 1-6. The analyses for Claims 14-19 are substantially similar to Claims 1-6.
In addition Claim 14 recites, “An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of operations.” The “apparatus,” under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 20
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claims 1. The analyses for Claim 20 are substantially similar to Claims 1.
In addition Claim 20 recites, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising: . . ..” The apparatus, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-10, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (US 20140267248 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220284844 A1).
Zou’s fig. 4
PNG
media_image3.png
328
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is substantially similar to Applicant’s Fig. 6:
PNG
media_image4.png
734
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which Applicant explained, “Figure 6 illustrates a block diagram for determining additional mesh vertices for creating various transitional effects for planar content at the second perspective in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure.” Spec. ¶ 13.
Regarding Claim 1, Zou teaches A method, comprising: at a processor (Zou Fig. 1; ¶ 24):
determining a first set of vertices (V0-3) associated with edges of a content item (polygon 324) (Zou’s fig. 4 324 V0-3);
determining a second set of vertices offset (“Each pair of vertices that are co-linearly connected by a side of the convex polygon form a side of a rectangle that extends outward from the convex polygon by a predetermined shadow distance.” Zou ¶ 36.) from the first set of vertices, wherein the offset is determined based on a distance (shadow distance) (
PNG
media_image5.png
554
442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“Referring again to FIG. 2, process 200 continues with generation of a soft shadow mesh that extends outward from the convex polygon (block 216). The hard shadow mesh covers only the convex polygon, which in turn corresponds to a region that is encompassed by the structure. By contrast, the soft shadow mesh extends outward from the convex polygon to cover a region that surrounds the structure in the virtual environment. The soft shadow mesh is generated with the appearance of rounded corners to produce an appearance of a diffuse shadow in the virtual environment. The processor 108 generates the soft shadow mesh in an iterative manner using each of the vertices in the convex polygon as a basis for the soft shadow mesh triangles. Each pair of vertices that are co-linearly connected by a side of the convex polygon form a side of a rectangle that extends outward from the convex polygon by a predetermined shadow distance. The processor 108 generates a series of triangles that extend outwardly from the vertices of the convex polygon to fill gaps between the rectangles to form a continuous mesh that surrounds the convex polygon. FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 provide additional illustrations for the generation of the soft shadow mesh.” Zou ¶ 36.);
determining a boundary (outer boundary as shown in Zou Fig. 4:
PNG
media_image6.png
130
134
media_image6.png
Greyscale
) around the content item (content surrounded/represented by V0-3) including all of the second set of vertices (vertices on outer boundary); and
applying a transitional effect (soft shadow) between the boundary and the edges of the content item (“The processor 108 generates a series of triangles that extend outwardly from the vertices of the convex polygon to fill gaps between the rectangles to form a continuous mesh that surrounds the convex polygon. FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 provide additional illustrations for the generation of the soft shadow mesh.” Zou ¶ 36.).
The Examiner believes that the effect based on soft shadow is a sufficient read on the claimed transitional effect, because “transitional effect” is broad and the soft shadow reflects the transition between an object and its environment. However, Applicant may contend that soft shadow is not transitional enough.
Zhang teaches Zou’s soft shadow is transitional based on gradient effect (“In an actual scenario, the shadow is a black gradient effect.” Zhang ¶ 158. The gradient effect is a gradual smooth transition between two or more colors.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s gradient effect with Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the shadow more visually pleasing. The soft shadow is made gradually softer according to the gradient effect, which is distinguished from hard shadows.
Regarding Claim 4, Zou further teaches The method of claim 1,
wherein determining the second set of vertices ( Zou Fig. 4:
PNG
media_image7.png
342
340
media_image7.png
Greyscale
) comprises: for each respective first vertex (V0) of the first set of vertices (V0-3): determining a first vector (vector from V0 to M(0,0)) starting at the respective first vertex and extending along a first side (V3 to V0) of the content item;
determining a second vector (vector from V0 to M(0,2)) starting at the respective first vertex and extending along a second side (V0 to V1) of the content item;
determining a third vector (vector from M(0,0) to M(3,2)) that is normal to the first vector (vector from V0 to M(0,0)) and furthest from the second vector (vector from V0 to M(0,2));
determining a fourth vector (vector from M(0,2) to M(1,0)) that is normal to the second vector (vector from V0 to M(0,2)) and furthest from the first vector (vector from V0 to M(0,0)); and
determining a plurality of vertices offset the distance (software distance) away from the first set of vertices and along the respective third vectors (vector from M(0,0) to M(3,2)) and fourth vectors (vector from M(0,2) to M(1,0)) (
“The soft shadow mesh is generated with the appearance of rounded corners to produce an appearance of a diffuse shadow in the virtual environment. The processor 108 generates the soft shadow mesh in an iterative manner using each of the vertices in the convex polygon as a basis for the soft shadow mesh triangles. Each pair of vertices that are co-linearly connected by a side of the convex polygon form a side of a rectangle that extends outward from the convex polygon by a predetermined shadow distance. The processor 108 generates a series of triangles that extend outwardly from the vertices of the convex polygon to fill gaps between the rectangles to form a continuous mesh that surrounds the convex polygon. FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 provide additional illustrations for the generation of the soft shadow mesh.” Zou ¶ 36.).
Regarding Claim 9, Zou further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein applying the transitional effect between the boundary and the edges of the content item causes portions of other content items in a vicinity of the content item to become transparent (“The processor 108 generates a series of triangles that extend outwardly from the vertices of the convex polygon to fill gaps between the rectangles to form a continuous mesh that surrounds the convex polygon. FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 provide additional illustrations for the generation of the soft shadow mesh.” Zou ¶ 36. Soft shadows are transparent, and the soft shadow is between the boundary and the edges. Here, other content items correspond to content items of soft shadow areas.).
Regarding Claim 10, Zou in view of Zhang teaches The method of claim 1, wherein applying the transitional effect between the boundary and the edges of the content item comprises applying a soft shadow that extends outwardly from the edges of the content item towards the boundary, and causes portions of other content items in a vicinity of the content item to become transparent according to the soft shadow (“The processor 108 generates a series of triangles that extend outwardly from the vertices of the convex polygon to fill gaps between the rectangles to form a continuous mesh that surrounds the convex polygon. FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 provide additional illustrations for the generation of the soft shadow mesh.” Zou ¶ 36. Soft shadows are transparent, and the soft shadow is between the boundary and the edges.).
Zou does not explicitly disclose; however, Zhang teaches the soft shadow is based on gradient effect (“In an actual scenario, the shadow is a black gradient effect.” Zhang ¶ 158.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang’s gradient effect with Zou. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the shadow more visually pleasing. The soft shadow is made gradually softer according to the gradient effect, which is distinguished from hard shadows.
Claims 14 and 17 are substantially similar to Claims 1 and 4. The rejections analyses based on Zou in view of Zhang for Claims 1 and 4 are applied to Claims 14 and 17. In addition, Claim 14 recites, “An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising: . . .” (Zou Fig. 1; ¶ 24).
Claims 20 is substantially similar to Claims 1. The rejections analyses based on Zou in view of Zhang for Claim 1 is applied to Claim 20. In addition, Claim 20 recites, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising: . . .” (Zou Fig. 1; ¶ 24).
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in view of Zhang as applied to Claim 1, in further view of ITO et al. (WO 2024062938 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Zou in view of Zhang teaches The method of claim 1.
Zou in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach; however, ITO teaches further comprising determining the distance based on a first distance from a center of the content item to a first vertex of the first set of vertices (
“For example, in either case, the movement distance (movement amount) of the vertex may be determined by the following formula: vertex movement distance = vertex gravity center distance x node width x 1/8. Note that ‘8’ is an adjustment coefficient, and a value other than ‘8’ may be used.” ITO p. 13. “. . . the vertex gravity center distance, which is the distance between the centroid vertex and the edge vertex gravity center, for example.” ITO p. 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine ITO with Zou in view of Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make vertex movement proportional of the size of the polygon, which is related to the distance between a center to a first vertex. As a result the vertex movement, or Zou in view of Zhang’s vertex offsets are not out of proportion.
Regarding Claim 3, Zou in view of Zhang teaches The method of claim 1.
Zou in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach; however, ITO teaches further comprising determining the distance based on a second distance from a center of the content item to a first edge of the edges of the content item (
“For example, in either case, the movement distance (movement amount) of the vertex may be determined by the following formula: vertex movement distance = vertex gravity center distance x node width x 1/8. Note that ‘8’ is an adjustment coefficient, and a value other than ‘8’ may be used.” ITO p. 13. “. . . the vertex gravity center distance, which is the distance between the centroid vertex and the edge vertex gravity center, for example.” ITO p. 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine ITO with Zou in view of Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make vertex movement proportional of the size of the polygon, which is related to the distance between a center to a first vertex. As a result the vertex movement, or Zou in view of Zhang’s vertex offsets are not out of proportion.
Claims 15-16 are substantially similar to Claims 2-3. The rejections analyses based on Zou in view of Zhang and ITO for Claims 2-3 are applied to Claims 15-16.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in view of Zhang as applied to Claim 1, in further view of JENKINS (US 20150269770 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Zou in view of Zhang teaches The method of claim 1.
Zou in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach; however, JENKINS teaches wherein the edges of the content item are determined based on an occluder mesh associated with the content item (“In the case of a connected mesh, the shared edges represent a trivial case of occluder fusion but for the exact method the fusion of these occluders must be explicitly computed and represent a degenerate case for the algorithm since the resulting polyhedra intersect exactly along the shared edges.” JENKINS ¶ 98.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JENKINS with Zou in view of Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to cull objects that have been occluded. It would reduce computation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11-12, and 18-19 will be allowed, if Applicant addresses the outstanding 101, 112 rejections, claim objections without broadening the independent claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the combination of all the limitations of the following claims, and in particular, Zou does not teach:
5. The method of claim 4, wherein determining the second set of vertices further comprises: determining a fifth vector extending parallel with the first side of the content item and intersecting at least one respective third vector at at least one second vertex of the second set of vertices; determining a sixth vector extending parallel with the second side of the content item and intersecting at least one respective fourth vector at at least one third vertex of the second set of vertices; and determining a point of intersection between the fifth vector and the sixth vector.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of vertices associated with the edges of the content item correspond to a first perspective of the content item, and wherein the boundary is a first boundary, the method further comprising: determining a perspective change associated with the content item; discarding the first set of vertices and the first boundary; determining a third set of vertices associated with edges of a content item from a new perspective; determining a fourth set of vertices offset from the third set of vertices, wherein the offset is determined based on the distance; and determining a second boundary around the content item including all of the fourth set of vertices.
Claim 6-8 depends on Claim 5; Claim 12 depends on Claim 11; and Claims 18-19 are substantially similar to Claims 5-6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGXI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/ZHENGXI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights