DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims filed May 22, 2026 are received and entered.
2. Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 are amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments / Amendment
4. The rejections of claims 4 – 5, and 11 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are WITHDRAWN in view of the Amendment.
5. On page 11 of the Response, the Applicant argues that “Sobolev is fundamentally a reactive, touch-based system designed solely to identify which object a user’s physical finger is pointing at.” The Applicant then points to claim 1 to further support this argument.
The Office finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. The disclosure and system of Sobolev includes much more than “solely identifying which object a user’s physical finger is pointing at”. For example, please see FIG. 7 of Sobolev, which discloses a process for correcting distortion caused by a misalignment between a user’s viewing position and an object’s position (paragraph [0045]).
To simplify this disclosure as just being directed to a touch input is a disingenuous oversimplification that ignores that Sobolev is a 42 page document with a plethora of information contained therein that is publicly available and therefore known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. The disclosure of Sobolev is not limited to what is claimed therein. Instead, the entirety of the disclosure of Sobolev is available to persons of ordinary skill in the art to read, understand, and interpret. Accordingly, Applicant’s opinion as to the “sole” purpose of Sobolev is irrelevant.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point out that Applicant similarly claims a “touch interface” in claim 7, thus rendering their objection over the reliance on Sobolev’s similar touch interface as selective and hypocritical.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
6. On page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues that “Sobolev fails to teach utilizing the object coordinates to continuously update the rendering and orientation of the digital content”.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the substantial amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Evans (U.S. Pub. 2017/0372516).
7. On page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues that “Sinharoy is not reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem” and with regard to Sobolev, “they do not share the same field of endeavor”.
The Office finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant’s arguments are irrelevant to the previous rejection. The Examiner clearly stated that the teachings of “combining local and cloud computing for processing information” was “well-known and conventional in the art”. Sinharoy was relied upon only to demonstrate that well-known and conventional teaching.
Applicant has provided no argument or assertion rebuffing the Examiner’s earlier finding that “combining local and cloud computing for processing information” was “well-known and conventional in the art”.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 – 14 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobolev (U.S. Pub. 2022/0075477) in view of Evans (U.S. Pub. 2017/0372516).
Regarding claim 1, Sobolev teaches: a method to dynamically adjust a digital content in view of a user (Abstract; paragraph [0120]; displayed content is provided in-perspective for the user viewing the graphics such that when the user changes their angle relative to a display, the content is still viewable. Additionally, a user’s perspective is dynamically determined for detecting which object a user may be interacting depending on their particular perspective. Regardless of the disclosure of the prior art, this particular recitation is non-limiting as it fails to breathe life and meaning into the body of the claim as there is no tie in to the recitation “dynamically adjust”), wherein the method comprising:
capturing sensor data of the user via a user sensor (FIGS. 5, 18B; paragraphs [0041], [0100]; cameras 506 / 1812 may include a user-facing camera [sensor] which captures images of user 504);
obtaining object coordinates associated with a physical object (FIGS. 7, 13; paragraphs [0045], [0074], [0084]; determining the correlation between a particular object and the user’s position and direction of sight includes determining the user position and the object [target] position in a coordinate space, and therefore necessarily determines object coordinates);
processing the sensor data obtained from the user sensor to determine real-time user coordinates via one or more processing units (FIGS. 5, 7, 18B; paragraphs [0013], [0045], [0084]; as set forth above, determining the correlation between a particular object and the user’s position and direction of sight includes determining the user position and the object [target] position in a coordinate space, and therefore necessarily determines user coordinates. In step 706, a user’s viewing position is determined based on sensor data obtained from the user-facing camera [sensor]. In order to dynamically determine a user’s perspective for parallax correction and touch tracking, user coordinates are therefore captured in real-time by the user-facing camera [sensor]), and
displaying the digital content on the active transparent display (FIG. 18B; paragraph [0098]; transparent display 1806 displays, for example, swatches 1810 as digital content that corresponds to real-world content of a watch 1808).
Sobolev fails to explicitly disclose: computing a perspective transformation for the digital content based at least one the real-time user coordinates and the object coordinates; continuously updating a rendering and an orientation of the digital content using the perspective transformation based on a changing spatial relationship between the real-time user coordinates and the object coordinates, wherein the continuously updating occurs independent of a physical touch on an active transparent display.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Evans discloses: an augmented reality system that displays content to align with a user’s perspective as detected with cameras (paragraph [0033]).
With regard to claim 1, Evans teaches: computing a perspective transformation for the digital content based at least one the real-time user coordinates and the object coordinates (paragraph [0033]; a viewing perspective of a user relative to at least one object is used to determine a transformation of a displayed object in real-time. This transformation includes position [coordinates] of the displayed object. Additionally, the viewing perspective of the user necessarily includes real-time user coordinates in order to determine the above transformation);
continuously updating a rendering and an orientation of the digital content using the perspective transformation based on a changing spatial relationship between the real-time user coordinates and the object coordinates, wherein the continuously updating occurs independent of a physical touch on an active transparent display (paragraphs [0033], [0073]; the user’s viewing perspective [real-time user coordinates] and object transformation are continuously updated in real time as the user’s viewing perspective changes and thus the spatial relationship between the user’s real-time coordinates and the object position [coordinates] change).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sobolev and Evans to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of an augmented reality system that uses cameras to capture and track a user’s position and an object’s position in real-time to provide touch panel content in-perspective, as taught by Sobolev, are known. Additionally, the teachings of an augmented reality system that captures a user’s viewing perspective and object position to continuously update transformations of the object to be in-perspective to the user based on real-time movements of the user, as taught by Evans, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Sobolev and Evans yields the predictable results of an augmented reality system that uses cameras to capture and track a user’s position and an object’s position in real-time to provide touch panel content in-perspective, where the touch panel content is transformed continuously based on changes in the user’s position to keep the touch panel content in-perspective to the user. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the continuously updated transformations of content provided to a user based on a user changing their position, as taught by Evans, into the system of Sobolev. This combination provides the predictable result of display content of Sobolev being continuously transformed based on the angle at which the user is viewing the display content. While this is suggested in Sobolev, Evans explicitly discloses continuously updated transformations of content based on a changing user’s perspective. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Sobolev and Evans to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Sobolev teaches: an augment glass system to dynamically adjust a digital content in view of a user (Abstract; paragraph [0120], [0132]; an augmented reality system including a transparent touch panel displays content in-perspective for the user viewing the graphics such that when the user changes their angle relative to a display, the content is still viewable. Additionally, a user’s perspective is dynamically determined for detecting which object a user may be interacting depending on their particular perspective. Regardless of the disclosure of the prior art, this particular recitation is non-limiting as it fails to breathe life and meaning into the body of the claim as there is no tie in to the recitation “dynamically adjust”), wherein the augment glass system comprises:
an active transparent display (FIG. 18B; paragraph [0100]; transparent display 1806);
a sensor housing (FIGS. 5, 18B; paragraphs [0041], [0100]; cameras 506 / 1812), wherein the sensor housing includes:
a user sensor to capture sensor data of the user (FIGS. 5, 18B; paragraphs [0041], [0100]; cameras 506 / 1812 include a user-facing camera [sensor] which captures images of user 504);
one or more processing units (FIG. 13; paragraph [0074]; computing system 1310 includes processing resources, such as a processor, that is used to perform disclosed operations) configured for:
processing sensor data obtained from the user sensor to determine real-time user coordinates via a computer vision engine (FIGS. 5, 7, 18B; paragraphs [0013], [0045], [0047], [0080], [0084]; as set forth above with regard to claim 1, determining the correlation between a particular object and the user’s position and direction of sight includes determining the user position and the object [target] position in a coordinate space, and therefore necessarily determines user coordinates. In step 706, a user’s viewing position is determined, using computer vision related software libraries, based on sensor data obtained from the user-facing camera [sensor]. In order to dynamically determine a user’s perspective for parallax correction and touch tracking, user coordinates are therefore captured in real-time by the user-facing camera [sensor]. Location of objects [targets] may be determined using computer vision techniques as well),
displaying the digital content on the active transparent display via a frontend visualization application (FIG. 18B; paragraph [0098]; transparent display 1806 displays, for example, swatches 1810 as digital content that corresponds to real-world content of a watch 1808. It is implicit that there is an application that is responsible for displaying content via transparent display 1806, and this “application” is therefore interpreted as a “frontend visualization application”).
Sobolev fails to explicitly disclose: the sensor housing is a custom sensor housing.
However, Sobolev discloses that the disclosed system can be installed in storefronts, display cases, museum exhibits, etc. (FIGS. 18A, 19, 20A; paragraphs [0016], [0097], [0105], [0107]). Each of these exemplified installations have different installations and configurations thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention for the particular camera arrangement for each particular use of Sobolev to be customized to account for different installation environments. Sobolev implies as much by disclosing in-field installation and calibration (paragraph [0044], [0060]).
The remainder of this claim has the same scope as the recitations rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, the remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1 in view of the combination of Sobolev and Evans. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
Regarding claim 17, Sobolev fails to explicitly disclose: a hardware platform; and the active transparent display operatively coupled to the hardware platform.
However, Sobolev discloses that the disclosed system can be installed in storefronts, display cases, museum exhibits, etc. (FIGS. 18A, 19, 20A; paragraphs [0016], [0097], [0105], [0107]). Each of these exemplified installations have different installations and configurations thereof.
With regard to the display case embodiment of FIG. 19, the display case in and of itself, in which the transparent display 1806 and watch 1808 are provided, is interpreted as a “hardware platform”.
It is well-known and conventional for stores to have display cases having different heights.
Accordingly, the particular angle of tilt between an object and a user is based on the height of the user, as set forth above, and the height of the “hardware platform” as well as the location of the user-facing camera. These relative heights and placement are inherent components of the angles formed between the user-facing camera, the object-facing camera, the object, and the user that are required to determine a vector that passes through both a user and an object (paragraph [0042]) to facilitate the disclosed in-perspective display as well as touch sensing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a user of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an angle between a user and an object based on the inherent relationship between the user’s height and the location of the cameras which include a relative height of a “hardware platform”, as set forth above.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try incorporating the hardware components of Sobolev, such as the remote computing system 1310 and the processing resources thereof, within the “hardware platform”. There are a limited number of options for locating the computing system 1310 of Sobolev when implemented in a display case embodiment: within the “hardware platform”, wired to the “hardware platform”, or wirelessly communicating with components within the “hardware platform”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to try locating the remote computing system 1310 within the “hardware platform” set forth above.
The remainder of this claim has the same scope as the recitations rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, the remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1 in view of the combination of Sobolev and Evans. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
Regarding claim 2, Sobolev teaches: further comprising capturing sensor data of the object via an object sensor (FIGS. 5, 18B; paragraphs [0041], [0100]; cameras 506 / 1812 may include an object-facing camera [sensor] that captures images of object(s) of interest 500), wherein the user sensor and the object sensor include an infrared camera or a face mapping module (paragraph [0083]; the cameras may include infrared sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Sobolev teaches: wherein the one or more processing units compile the received sensor data to identify user details and object details (FIG. 7; paragraphs [0042], [0045], [0074]; as set forth above with regard to claim 1, the processor performs the disclosed operations. In step 702, an image of a user is captured. This sensor data is “compiled” in steps 704 and 706 to identify a particular user and viewing position [user details]. In step 708, an image of an object [target] is captured. This sensor data is “compiled” in step 710 to identify a particular object / target [object details]. This captured sensor data is further compiled in step 712 by correlating the user’s position and direction of sight with an identified object. This correlation identifies user details and object details, specifically, that they are correlated and a vector passes through both the user and the object / target).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Sobolev teaches: wherein determining the real-time user coordinates further includes: determining the real-time user coordinates in a three-dimensional shape by calculating the real-time user coordinates in reference to a global coordinate (paragraph [0084]; any obtained coordinates may be converted to a global coordinate space using three-dimensional geometric translation);
determining an average user point coordinate based on a left eye and a right eye of the user, wherein the average user point coordinate is the real-time user coordinates for tracking the user (paragraph [0123]; a user’s perspective is based on taking an average eye position of the user’s left and right eyes. Accordingly, the real-time user coordinates would be the average eye position coordinates for tracking a user’s perspective).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Sobolev teaches: wherein determining the object coordinates further includes: determining the object coordinates in a three-dimensional shape by calculating the object coordinates in reference to a global coordinate (paragraph [0084]; any obtained coordinates may be converted to a global coordinate space using three-dimensional geometric translation);
determining an average object point coordinate based on height, width, and length of the object, wherein the average object point coordinate is the object coordinate for tracking the object (paragraph [0082]; a weighted gradient of a displayed object utilizes a center of the object to determine a vector that matches the user’s perspective and the object at which a user’s touch is directed. This weighted gradient center is interpreted as an average object point coordinate that is used to track the object relative to the user’s perspective).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sobolev teaches: wherein the one or more processing units further include: calculating an angle of tilt or pitch angle at least based on a position of the user sensor and a height of the real-time user coordinates (paragraph [0120]; as set forth above with regard to claim 1, displayed content is provided in-perspective for the user viewing the graphics such that when the user changes their angle relative to a display, the content is still viewable. This accounts for users of different heights and positions to dynamically adjust for different user perspectives. Additionally, this implicitly or inherently requires a relative height between the user sensor and the user in order to make determinations as to the user’s perspective),
orienting the digital content at least based on the real-time user coordinates (FIG. 18B; paragraphs [0080], [0120]; objects [digital content] are displayed based on a user’s detected perspective by tracking the user and objects in real-type. This allows the content to be viewable by a user as the user changes their angle relative to the display. Based on this disclosure, it is implied that the swatches 1810 would be rotated to orient in the direction of a user as the user moves relative to the transparent display 1806), and
displaying the digital content on the active transparent display (FIG. 18B; paragraph [0098]; transparent display 1806 displays, for example, swatches 1810 as digital content that corresponds to real-world content of a watch 1808).
Sobolev fails to explicitly disclose: the angle is based on a position of the user sensor.
However, Sobolev discloses that the disclosed system can be installed in storefronts, display cases, museum exhibits, etc. (FIGS. 18A, 19, 20A; paragraphs [0016], [0097], [0105], [0107]). Each of these exemplified installations have different installations and configurations thereof.
With regard to the display case embodiment of FIG. 19, the display case in and of itself, in which the transparent display 1806 and watch 1808 are provided, is interpreted as a “hardware platform”.
It is well-known and conventional for stores to have display cases having different heights.
Accordingly, the particular angle of tilt between an object and a user is based on the height of the user, as set forth above, and the height of the “hardware platform” as well as the location of the user-facing camera. These relative heights and placement are inherent components of the angles formed between the user-facing camera, the object-facing camera, the object, and the user that are required to determine a vector that passes through both a user and an object (paragraph [0042]) to facilitate the disclosed in-perspective display as well as touch sensing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a user of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an angle between a user and an object based on the inherent relationship between the user’s height and the location of the cameras which include a relative height of a “hardware platform”, as set forth above.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sobolev teaches: wherein the active transparent display comprises: a plurality of diodes for projecting the digital content based on real-time user coordinates (FIG. 18B; paragraphs [0043], [0098], [0120]; transparent display 1806 may display content using LED lighting. This displayed content is provided in-perspective for the user viewing the graphics such that when the user changes their angle relative to a display, the content is still viewable. Accordingly, the displaying of content is based on real-time user coordinates in order to be provided in-perspective), and
a touch interface for the user (FIG. 18B. paragraphs [0098], [0100]; storefront 1804, in which transparent display 1806 is installed, may include a user interactive touch interface).
Regarding claim 9, Sobolev teaches: wherein the custom sensor housing is a modular attachment mounted on the active transparent display (FIGS. 18A, 19, 20A; paragraph [0127]; the disclosed system may be modular, allowing for different numbers of touch panels and cameras. Accordingly, it is implied that the cameras themselves may be modular and attachably mounted to transparent displays 1806).
Regarding claim 10, Sobolev teaches: further comprising an object sensor (FIGS. 5, 18B; paragraphs [0041], [0100]; cameras 506 / 1812 include an object-facing camera [sensor] that captures images of object(s) of interest 500), wherein the user sensor and the object sensor include a camera to capture data of the user and the object (FIGS. 5, 18B; paragraphs [0041], [0100]; cameras 506 / 1812 include a user-facing camera [sensor] which captures images of user 504 and an object-facing camera [sensor] that captures images of object(s) of interest 500).
Regarding claim 18, Sobolev teaches: wherein the hardware platform further comprises one or more active transparent displays operatively coupled to the hardware platform (FIG. 19; paragraphs [0100], [0105]; transparent display 1806 is installed in the “hardware platform” of the display case embodiment), and
wherein the one or more processing units are configured to display the digital content selected from the group consisting of:
(i) displaying the digital content on the one or more active transparent displays (FIG. 19; paragraphs [0098], [0105]; swatches 1810 may be displayed as digital content on the transparent display 1806); and
(ii) displaying a plurality of digital content independently on the plurality of active transparent displays (This recitation is recited in the alternative and is therefore not a required element in this claim).
10. Claims 15 – 16 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobolev in view of Evans, as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, as evidenced by Sinharoy et al. (U.S. Pub. 2025/0022146).
Regarding claim 15, neither Sobolev nor Evans explicitly disclose: further comprises a processing circuitry includes one or more processing units communicating via a communication device to a cloud network.
However, it was well-known and conventional in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine local and cloud computing for processing information. For evidence, please see paragraph [0066] of Sinharoy.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to include cloud computing, and wireless transmission thereto, as part of the processing resources of Sobolev. Such a modification to the combination of Sobolev and Evans requires nothing more than a simple substitution of a well-known and conventional processing technique for another.
Regarding claim 16, neither Sobolev nor Evans explicitly disclose: wherein the cloud network includes a server for processing the rendering of the digital content to display on the active transparent display.
However, it was well-known and conventional in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine local and cloud computing for processing information. For evidence, please see paragraph [0066] of Sinharoy. Such an implementation would include a cloud-based server for performing the corresponding processing functions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to include cloud computing, and wireless transmission thereto, as part of the processing resources of Sobolev. Such a modification to the combination of Sobolev and Evans requires nothing more than a simple substitution of a well-known and conventional processing technique for another to implement the function of displaying content.
Regarding claim 19, neither Sobolev nor Evans explicitly disclose: wherein the active transparent display further comprises a processing circuitry including: one or more processing units configured to communicate via a communication device to a cloud network; wherein the cloud network includes a server for processing the rendering of the digital content to display on the active transparent display.
However, it was well-known and conventional in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine local and cloud computing for processing information. For evidence, please see paragraph [0066] of Sinharoy. Such an implementation would include a cloud-based server for performing the corresponding processing functions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to include cloud computing, and wireless transmission thereto, as part of the processing resources of Sobolev. Such a modification to the combination of Sobolev and Evans requires nothing more than a simple substitution of a well-known and conventional processing technique for another to implement the function of displaying content.
Regarding claim 20, Sobolev teaches: further comprising: a plurality of augment glass systems for dynamically adjusting the digital content (paragraph [0118]; the disclosed technology may be used in retail storefronts, display cases, etc. It is well-known and conventional for retail stores to have multiple fronts [i.e., sections of glass], multiple display cases, etc. Additionally, multiple stores may be incorporate such technology which therefore include multiple “augment glass systems”), each augment glass system including:
a processing circuitry including one or more processing units (FIG. 13; paragraph [0074]; each “augment glass system” would include a computing system 1310 that includes processing resources, such as a processor, that is used to perform disclosed operations).
Neither Sobolev nor Evans explicitly disclose: wherein the processing circuitry of each augment glass system is configured to communicate with at least one other processing circuitry of the plurality of augment glass systems via a communication device to a cloud network; wherein the cloud network includes a server for processing the rendering of the digital content to display on the active transparent display of each augment glass system.
However, it was well-known and conventional in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine local and cloud computing for processing information. For evidence, please see paragraph [0066] of Sinharoy. Such an implementation would include a cloud-based server for performing the corresponding processing functions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to include cloud computing, and wireless transmission thereto, as part of the processing resources of Sobolev. Such a modification to the combination of Sobolev and Evans requires nothing more than a simple substitution of a well-known and conventional processing technique for another to implement the function of displaying content.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights