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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng (CN 113934000; see attached translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Weng discloses:
A device (Title – Optical Device, Optical System, Display Device, Display Device and Display System), comprising:
a prism collimator (Fig. 2: 2 – collimating prism) comprising:
a first freeform surface (Fig. 2: 23 – first transmission surface 23; para. 47 – first transmission surface 23 is a free curved surface)
to refract light received from a microdisplay (para. 46 – first transmission surface 23 refracts image light by image source 1);
a second freeform surface (Fig. 2: 21 – first reflecting surface; para. 40 – reflective surface of the first reflective surface 21 is free-form curved surface)
to reflect light received from the first freeform surface (Fig. 2 – light from first transmission surface 23 is reflected by first reflective surface 21);
a third freeform surface (Fig. 2: 22 – second reflective surface; para. 40 – reflective surface of the second reflective surface 22 is free-form curved surface)
to reflect light received from the second freeform surface (Fig. 2 – light reflected from first reflective surface 21 is reflected by second reflective surface 22);
and a fourth freeform surface (Fig. 2: 24 – second transmission surface; para. 51 – optical surface of second transmission surface 24 is a free-form surface)
to refract light received from the third freeform surface (Fig. 2 – second transmission surface 24 refracts light received from second reflective surface 22)
in substantially parallel rays (para. 41 – surface 22 subjected to reflective second shaping, and image light after second shaping becomes collimated [i.e. parallel] light).
Regarding Claim 6, Weng discloses:
The device of claim 1 (Fig. 2),
wherein the fourth freeform surface refracts light in substantially parallel rays at varying distances to an input pupil (para. 50 – second transmission surfaces 24 with different refractive powers may correspond to different positions of collimating prism 2, so collimating prism 2 can have more placement positions and angles relative to light guide mechanism 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Weng discloses:
A system (Title – Optical Device, Optical System, Display Device, Display Device and Display System), comprising:
a microdisplay to generate light (Fig. 2: 1 – image source 1; para. 38 – self-illuminating image source can include micro LED display);
a waveguide (Fig. 2: 31 – optical waveguide of light guide mechanism 3);
and a prism collimator (Fig. 2: 2 – collimating prism)
to collimate light generated by the microdisplay (para. 46 – first transmission surface 23 refracts image light by image source 1)
for transmission to the waveguide (para. 58 – collimated image light is coupled into optical waveguide 31 through coupling component 32), the prism collimator comprising:
a first freeform surface (Fig. 2: 23 – first transmission surface 23; para. 47 – first transmission surface 23 is a free curved surface)
to refract light received from the microdisplay (para. 46 – first transmission surface 23 refracts image light by image source 1);
a second freeform surface (Fig. 2: 21 – first reflecting surface; para. 40 – reflective surface of the first reflective surface 21 is free-form curved surface)
to reflect light received from the first freeform surface (Fig. 2 – light from first transmission surface 23 is reflected by first reflective surface 21);
a third freeform surface (Fig. 2: 22 – second reflective surface; para. 40 – reflective surface of the second reflective surface 22 is free-form curved surface)
to reflect light received from the second freeform surface (Fig. 2 – light reflected from first reflective surface 21 is reflected by second reflective surface 22);
and a fourth freeform surface (Fig. 2: 24 – second transmission surface; para. 51 – optical surface of second transmission surface 24 is a free-form surface)
to refract light received from the third freeform surface (Fig. 2 – second transmission surface 24 refracts light received from second reflective surface 22)
in substantially parallel rays (para. 41 – surface 22 subjected to reflective second shaping, and image light after second shaping becomes collimated [i.e. parallel] light)
toward the waveguide (Fig. 2 – collimated light from collimating prism 2 enters light guide mechanism 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Weng discloses:
The system of claim 8 (Fig. 2),
wherein the fourth freeform surface refracts light in substantially parallel rays at varying distances to an input pupil (para. 50 – second transmission surfaces 24 with different refractive powers may correspond to different positions of collimating prism 2, so collimating prism 2 can have more placement positions and angles relative to light guide mechanism 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Weng discloses:
A method, comprising: refracting light received from a microdisplay at a first freeform surface of a prism collimator (para. 46-47 – first [free-form] transmission surface 23 refracts image light emitted by image source 1 [microdisplay]);
reflecting light received from the first freeform surface at a second freeform surface of the prism collimator (para. 45 – first transmission surface 23 is disposed on optical path between image source 1 and first reflection surface 21);
reflecting light received from the second freeform surface at a third freeform surface of the prism collimator (para. 41 – first reflective surface 21 performs reflective first shaping on image light, and then is reflected by the second reflection surface 22);
and at a fourth freeform surface of the prism collimator, refracting light received from the third freeform surface in substantially parallel rays (para. 41 – surface 22 subjected to reflective second shaping, and image light after second shaping becomes collimated [i.e. parallel] light).
Regarding Claim 19, Weng discloses:
The method of claim 15 (para. 41, 45-47), further comprising:
refracting light in substantially parallel rays at varying distances to an input pupil at the fourth freeform surface (para. 50 – second transmission surfaces 24 with different refractive powers may correspond to different positions of collimating prism 2, so collimating prism 2 can have more placement positions and angles relative to light guide mechanism 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng (CN 113934000) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nikolov (US 20210103072).
Regarding Claim 2, Weng discloses:
The device of claim 1 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is a toroid.
Weng and Nikolov are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Nikolov discloses: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is a toroid (Nikolov: para. 72 – all three surfaces of fold prism 40 can be toroidal asphere).
The benefit of configuring at least one of the freeform surfaces in a penta prism collimator would be for aberration correction, as taught by Nikolov (Nikolov: para. 72 - All three surfaces [2 refractive, 1 reflective surfaces] of the fold prism can be made spherical, rotationally symmetric aspherical, off-axis conic, off-axis asphere, toroidal asphere, or freeform for aberration correction).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute at least one of the freeform surfaces of the prism collimator of Weng for the toroidal asphere surface of Nikolov, in order to correct for aberrations in any incident projected image light.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Gebauer (DE 102012204605; see attached translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Weng discloses:
The device of claim 1 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are formed from a single piece of plastic.
Weng and Gebauer are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Gebauer discloses: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are formed from a single piece of plastic (Gebauer: para. 15 – the deflecting body 12 [consisting of a plurality of prisms 16] is made of plastic in an injection molding process).
The benefit of forming a prism collimator out of plastic would be to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure, as taught by Gebauer (para. 15 – advantageous because even complicated structures of the deflecting body can be produced and mass production is readily possible).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to configure each surface of the prism collimator of Weng to be formed of a single piece of plastic, as taught by Gebauer, in order to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure.
Regarding Claim 4, Weng discloses:
The device of claim 1 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are injection molded.
Weng and Gebauer are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Gebauer discloses: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are injection molded (Gebauer: para. 15 – the deflecting body 12 [consisting of a plurality of prisms 16] is made of plastic in an injection molding process).
The benefit of forming each surface of a prism collimator by injection molding would be to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure for use in optical devices, as taught by Gebauer (para. 15 – advantageous because even complicated structures of the deflecting body can be produced and mass production is readily possible via injection molding).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to form each surface of the prism collimator of Weng via injection molding, as taught by Gebauer, in order to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashkenazi (US2009147331A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Weng discloses:
The device of claim 1 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: further comprising a field flattener disposed between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface.
Weng and Ashkenazi are related in that they both disclose near-eye display systems.
Ashkenazi discloses: further comprising a field flattener disposed between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface (Ashkenazi: Fig. 3: 108 – field flattener 108 disposed between image projector [light source] and double-prism system 104).
The benefit of positioning a field flattener between a microdisplay and a first freeform surface a collimating prism would be to flatten the image plane of the projected display image to compensate for field curvature, as taught by Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi: para. 52 – field flattener 108 flattens image plane of projected display image to compensate for field curvature).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the field flattener of Ashkenazi between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface of Weng in order to flatten the image plane of the projected display image to compensate for field curvature.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Border (US 20170343822).
Regarding Claim 7, Weng discloses:
The device of claim 1 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is coated with a light absorbing surface.
Weng and Border are related in that they both disclose near-eye display systems.
Border discloses: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is coated with a light absorbing surface (Border: Fig. 34: 31050 – black coating applied to bottom surface of prism 31050).
The benefit of coating a surface of a prism collimator with a light absorbing surface would be to prevent image light from escaping the device and to prevent light from the outside environment from being transmitted through the prism toward an eyebox, as taught by Border (Border: para. 139 – black coating can be applied to bottom surface of prism 31050 to prevent image light from escaping from the solid optic assembly 3105, and also prevents stray light from the environment below the head-worn display from being transmitted upward into the prism 31050 where it can be reflected by the first partially reflective surface back toward the eyebox).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the black coating of Border onto at least one of the freeform surfaces of the prism collimator of Weng, in order to prevent image light from escaping the device and to prevent light from the outside environment from being transmitted through the prism toward an eyebox.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Nikolov.
Regarding Claim 9, Weng discloses:
The system of claim 8 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is a toroid.
Weng and Nikolov are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Nikolov discloses: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is a toroid (Nikolov: para. 72 – all three surfaces of fold prism 40 can be toroidal asphere).
The benefit of configuring at least one of the freeform surfaces in a prism collimator would be for aberration correction, as taught by Nikolov (Nikolov: para. 72 - All three surfaces [2 refractive, 1 reflective surfaces] of the fold prism can be made spherical, rotationally symmetric aspherical, off-axis conic, off-axis asphere, toroidal asphere, or freeform for aberration correction).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute at least one of the freeform surfaces of the prism collimator of Weng for the toroidal asphere surface of Nikolov, in order to correct for aberrations in any incident projected image light.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Gebauer.
Regarding Claim 10, Weng discloses:
The system of claim 8 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are formed from a single piece of plastic.
Weng and Gebauer are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Gebauer discloses: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are formed from a single piece of plastic (Gebauer: para. 15 – the deflecting body 12 [consisting of a plurality of prisms 16] is made of plastic in an injection molding process).
The benefit of forming a prism collimator out of plastic would be to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure, as taught by Gebauer (para. 15 – advantageous because even complicated structures of the deflecting body can be produced and mass production is readily possible).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to configure each surface of the prism collimator of Weng to be formed of a single piece of plastic, as taught by Gebauer, in order to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure.
Regarding Claim 11, Weng discloses:
The system of claim 8 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are injection molded.
Weng and Gebauer are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Gebauer discloses: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are injection molded (Gebauer: para. 15 – the deflecting body 12 [consisting of a plurality of prisms 16] is made of plastic in an injection molding process).
The benefit of forming each surface of a prism collimator by injection molding would be to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure for use in optical devices, as taught by Gebauer (para. 15 – advantageous because even complicated structures of the deflecting body can be produced and mass production is readily possible via injection molding).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to form each surface of the prism collimator of Weng via injection molding, as taught by Gebauer, in order to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Ashkenazi.
Regarding Claim 12, Weng discloses:
The system of claim 8 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: a field flattener disposed between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface.
Weng and Ashkenazi are related in that they both disclose near-eye display systems.
Ashkenazi discloses: further comprising a field flattener disposed between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface (Ashkenazi: Fig. 3: 108 – field flattener 108 disposed between image projector [light source] and double-prism system 104).
The benefit of positioning a field flattener between a microdisplay and a first freeform surface a collimating prism would be to flatten the image plane of the projected display image to compensate for field curvature, as taught by Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi: para. 52 – field flattener 108 flattens image plane of projected display image to compensate for field curvature).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the field flattener of Ashkenazi between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface of Weng in order to flatten the image plane of the projected display image to compensate for field curvature.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Border.
Regarding Claim 14, Weng discloses:
The system of claim 8 (Weng: Fig. 2).
Weng does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is coated with a light absorbing surface.
Weng and Border are related in that they both disclose near-eye display systems.
Border discloses: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is coated with a light absorbing surface (Border: Fig. 34: 31050 – black coating applied to bottom surface of prism 31050).
The benefit of coating a surface of a prism collimator with a light absorbing surface would be to prevent image light from escaping the device and to prevent light from the outside environment from being transmitted through the prism toward an eyebox, as taught by Border (Border: para. 139 – black coating can be applied to bottom surface of prism 31050 to prevent image light from escaping from the solid optic assembly 3105, and also prevents stray light from the environment below the head-worn display from being transmitted upward into the prism 31050 where it can be reflected by the first partially reflective surface back toward the eyebox).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the black coating of Border onto at least one of the freeform surfaces of the prism collimator of Weng, in order to prevent image light from escaping the device and to prevent light from the outside environment from being transmitted through the prism toward an eyebox.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Nikolov.
Regarding Claim 16, Weng discloses:
The method of claim 15 (Weng: para. 41, 45-47).
Weng does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is a toroid.
Weng and Nikolov are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Nikolov discloses: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is a toroid (Nikolov: para. 72 – all three surfaces of fold prism 40 can be toroidal asphere).
The benefit of configuring at least one of the freeform surfaces in a prism collimator would be for aberration correction, as taught by Nikolov (Nikolov: para. 72 - All three surfaces [2 refractive, 1 reflective surfaces] of the fold prism can be made spherical, rotationally symmetric aspherical, off-axis conic, off-axis asphere, toroidal asphere, or freeform for aberration correction).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute at least one of the freeform surfaces of the prism collimator of Weng for the toroidal asphere surface of Nikolov, in order to correct for aberrations in any incident projected image light.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Gebauer.
Regarding Claim 17, Weng discloses:
The method of claim 15 (Weng: para. 41, 45-47).
Weng does not disclose: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are injection molded.
Weng and Gebauer are related in that they both disclose optical devices which collimate and modify light from a light source.
Gebauer discloses: wherein the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces are injection molded (Gebauer: para. 15 – the deflecting body 12 [consisting of a plurality of prisms 16] is made of plastic in an injection molding process).
The benefit of forming each surface of a prism collimator by injection molding would be to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure for use in optical devices, as taught by Gebauer (para. 15 – advantageous because even complicated structures of the deflecting body can be produced and mass production is readily possible via injection molding).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to form each surface of the prism collimator of Weng via injection molding, as taught by Gebauer, in order to make it easier to mass produce the complicated prism structure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Ashkenazi.
Regarding Claim 18, Weng discloses:
The method of claim 15 (Weng: para. 41, 45-47).
Weng does not disclose: shifting a focal length of light received from the microdisplay at a field flattener disposed between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface.
Weng and Ashkenazi are related in that they both disclose near-eye display systems.
Ashkenazi discloses:
shifting a focal length of light received from the microdisplay (Ashkenazi: para. 55 – focus adjustment mechanism 116 adjusts focus of display image to appear at optical infinity, or so that display image appears nearby)
at a field flattener disposed between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface (Ashkenazi: Fig. 3: 108 – field flattener 108 disposed between image projector [light source] and double-prism system 104; para. 51 – focus adjustment mechanism 116 coupled with field flattener 108).
The benefit of shifting a focal length of light received from a microdisplay would be to be able to form a clear image of objects at a variety of distances from a viewer, as taught by Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi: para. 55 – focus adjustment mechanism 116 adjusts focus of display image to appear at optical infinity, or so that display image appears nearby). Furthermore, the benefit of positioning a field flattener between a microdisplay and a first freeform surface a collimating prism would be to flatten the image plane of the projected display image to compensate for field curvature, as taught by Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi: para. 52 – field flattener 108 flattens image plane of projected display image to compensate for field curvature).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to shift a focal length of light received from the microdisplay of Weng, and to add the field flattener of Ashkenazi between the microdisplay and the first freeform surface of Weng, in order to form a clear image of objects at a variety of distances from a viewer and to flatten the image plane of the projected display image to compensate for field curvature.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Border.
Regarding Claim 20, Weng discloses:
The method of claim 15 (Weng: para. 41, 45-47).
Weng does not disclose: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is coated with a light absorbing surface.
Weng and Border are related in that they both disclose near-eye display systems.
Border discloses: wherein at least one of the first, second, third, and fourth freeform surfaces is coated with a light absorbing surface (Border: Fig. 34: 31050 – black coating applied to bottom surface of prism 31050).
The benefit of coating a surface of a prism collimator with a light absorbing surface would be to prevent image light from escaping the device and to prevent light from the outside environment from being transmitted through the prism toward an eyebox, as taught by Border (Border: para. 139 – black coating can be applied to bottom surface of prism 31050 to prevent image light from escaping from the solid optic assembly 3105, and also prevents stray light from the environment below the head-worn display from being transmitted upward into the prism 31050 where it can be reflected by the first partially reflective surface back toward the eyebox).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the black coating of Border onto at least one of the freeform surfaces of the prism collimator of Weng, in order to prevent image light from escaping the device and to prevent light from the outside environment from being transmitted through the prism toward an eyebox.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Yuan (CN 105629359) – Figure 1: collimating penta prism and manufacturing method
Lee (US 20180045902) – Fig. 7-10: penta prism structure coupled to waveguide, intended for use in wearable display devices
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAZERAE AYODELE PIERCE-WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 4:00pm Monday-Thursday.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 5712729791. 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.
/C.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights