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 .
Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, limitations “an ideal position” and “an apparent position” must be shown or these features must be canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over related claim of the U.S. Patent 10,368,059 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than the claims in the US Patent 10,368,059 B2.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in the instant Application 19214545 vs. the U.S. Patent 10,368,059 B2.
Instant Application 19214545
U.S. Patent 10,368,059 B2
1. A machine-implemented method, comprising:outputting a first entity in an ideal position in three-dimensional space;sensing a viewer indication of an apparent position of said first entity;determining an offset between said ideal position and said apparent position;determining an adjustment from said offset, such that an apparent position of said ideal position with said adjustment is substantially similar to said ideal position absent said adjustment; and thereafter applying said adjustment to at least one of said first entity and a second entity.
1. A method, comprising:
defining, by a processor, a first coordinate in three-dimensional (3D) space to display a virtual object to a viewer, wherein the three-dimensional space is an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment;
displaying, by a display, the virtual object at the first coordinate in the 3D space;
sensing, by a sensor, an end-effector interacting with the virtual object when the virtual object is displayed at the first coordinate;
determining, by the processor, that the end-effector is pointing to a second coordinate in the 3D space that is different than the first coordinate where the virtual object is displayed;
determining, by the processor, an offset value between the first coordinate where the virtual object is located and the second coordinate where the end-effector is pointing to, wherein the offset value indicates a difference in a first coordinate and the second coordinate;
determining, by the processor, a third coordinate in the 3D space, wherein the third coordinate is the first coordinate of the first coordinate adjusted by the offset value so that the viewer perceives the virtual object as being located at the first coordinate in the 3D space;
displaying, by the display, the virtual object at the third coordinate in the 3D space;
sensing, by the sensor, the end-effector interacting with the virtual object when the virtual object is displayed at the third coordinate;
determining, by the processor, whether the end-effector is pointing to the first coordinate in the 3D space when the virtual object is displayed at the third coordinate;
in response to the end-effector pointing to the first coordinate in the 3D space, continuing to display the virtual object at the third coordinate; and
in response to the end-effector pointing to a coordinate in the 3D space that is not the first coordinate, iteratively adjusting, by the processor, a coordinate that the virtual object is displayed at until the end-effector points to the first coordinate.
1. A machine-implemented method, comprising:outputting a first entity in an ideal position in three-dimensional space;sensing a viewer indication of an apparent position of said first entity;determining an offset between said ideal position and said apparent position;determining an adjustment from said offset, such that an apparent position of said ideal position with said adjustment is substantially similar to said ideal position absent said adjustment; and thereafter applying said adjustment to at least one of said first entity and a second entity.
22. A method, comprising:
defining, by a processor, a first coordinate in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment to display a first virtual object to a viewer;
displaying, by a display, the first virtual object at the first coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment;
sensing, by a sensor, an end-effector interacting with the virtual object when the virtual object is displayed at the first coordinate;
determining, by the processor, that the end-effector is pointing to a second coordinate in the 3D space that is different than the first coordinate where the virtual object is displayed;
determining, by the processor, an offset value between the first coordinate where the virtual object is located and the second coordinate where the end-effector is pointing to, wherein the offset value indicates a difference in a first coordinate and the second coordinate determining, by the processor, a third coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment, wherein the third coordinate is the first coordinate of the first coordinate adjusted by the offset value so that the viewer perceives the virtual object as being located at the first coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment;
generating a second virtual object that is different than the first virtual object;
defining, by the processor, a fourth coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment to display the second virtual object to the viewer;
adjusting the fourth coordinate that the second virtual object is displayed at based on the offset value;
displaying, by the display, the first virtual object at the first coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment; and
displaying the second virtual object at the adjusted fourth coordinate.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over related claims of the U.S. Patent 10623721 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than the claims in the US Patent 10623721 B2.
Table 2: Comparison of claims in the instant Application 19214545 vs. the U.S. Patent 10623721 B2.
Instant Application 19214545
U.S. Patent 10623721 B2
1. A machine-implemented method, comprising:outputting a first entity in an ideal position in three-dimensional space;sensing a viewer indication of an apparent position of said first entity;
determining an offset between said ideal position and said apparent position;
determining an adjustment from said offset, such that an apparent position of said ideal position with said adjustment is substantially similar to said ideal position absent said adjustment; and
thereafter applying said adjustment to at least one of said first entity and a second entity.
1. A method, comprising:
defining, by a processing device, a first coordinate in a three-dimensional (3D) space to display a virtual object to a viewer;
displaying, by a display, the virtual object at the first coordinate in the 3D space;
determining, by a sensor, that an end-effector interacting with the virtual object at a first point in time is pointing to a second coordinate in the 3D space that is different than the first coordinate where the virtual object is displayed;
determining, by the processing device, an offset value between the first coordinate where the virtual object is located and the second coordinate where the end effector is pointing to, wherein the offset value indicates a difference in the first coordinate and the second coordinate;
determining, by the processing device, a third coordinate in the 3D space, wherein the third coordinate is the first coordinate of the first coordinate adjusted by the offset value so that the viewer perceives the virtual object as being located at the first coordinate in the 3D space;
determining, by the sensor, that the end-effector interacting with the virtual object at a second point in time is pointing to a fourth coordinate in the 3D space that is different than the third coordinate where the virtual object is displayed; and
in response to the end-effector pointing to the fourth coordinate in the 3D space that is not the third coordinate, iteratively adjusting, by the processing device, the fourth coordinate for the virtual object until the end-effector points to the first coordinate.
1. A machine-implemented method, comprising:outputting a first entity in an ideal position in three-dimensional space;sensing a viewer indication of an apparent position of said first entity;determining an offset between said ideal position and said apparent position;determining an adjustment from said offset, such that an apparent position of said ideal position with said adjustment is substantially similar to said ideal position absent said adjustment; and thereafter applying said adjustment to at least one of said first entity and a second entity.
11. A method, comprising:
defining, by a processing device, a first coordinate in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment;
displaying, by a display, a first virtual object to a viewer at the first coordinate;
determining, by the processing device, that an end-effector interacting with the first virtual object is pointing to a second coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment, wherein the second coordinate is different than the first coordinate;
determining, by the processing device, a difference between the first coordinate where the first virtual object is located and the second coordinate where the end-effector is pointing to;
determining, by the processing device, a third coordinate in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment, wherein the third coordinate is the first coordinate of the first coordinate adjusted by the determined difference;
generating a second virtual object;
defining, by the processing device, a fourth coordinate to display the second virtual object to the viewer in the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment, wherein the fourth coordinate is based on the determined difference; and
displaying, by the display, the first virtual object at the so third coordinate and the second virtual object at the fourth coordinate.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be directed to significantly more than the exception itself. Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claim recites “an ideal position". The concept of “ideal” in the “ideal position” is an abstract idea. However, it is not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “substantially similar”. However, “substantially” is a relative term. It does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds for this limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. It is not clear from the claim language what device or who would perform all operations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 of this title, 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US Patent 8,467,133 B2) (“Miller”), in view of Simmons (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0285429 A1), (“Simmons”).
Regarding claim 1, Miller meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A machine-implemented method (a method) [Miller: col. 4, line 44], comprising:
outputting ((a 3D image output) [Miller: col. 92, line 62]; (projecting) [Miller: col. 92, line 14]) a first entity ((the image) [Miller: col. 205, line 16]; (object) [Miller: col. 57, line 47]; (displayed to the viewer’s left eye) [Miller: col. 9, line 35]; (displayed to the viewer’s right eye) [Miller: col. 9, line 37]; (the augmented reality glasses may include a lens 818 for each eye of the wearer) [Miller: col. 53, line 61-63])) in an ideal position ((a placement position for the content within a field of view of the optical assembly) [Miller: col. 210, line 51-52]; (in the wearer's field of view) [Miller: col. 88, line 43-44]; (the position and/or alignment of the projected display to the wearer of the eyepiece may be adjustable in position) [Miller: col. 42, line 67 – col. 43, line 2]) in three-dimensional space (3D space) [Miller: col. 86, line 5];
sensing ((Command and control modes 7260 of the eyepiece may be initiated by sensing inputs through input devices 7244, user action 7248) [Miller: col. 115, line 32-33]; (sensing motion and correcting the images or the data) [Miller: col. 147, line 48-50]; (In embodiments, control of the eyepiece, and especially control of a cursor associated with displayed content to the user, may be enabled through the sensing of the motion of a facial feature, the tensing of a facial muscle, the clicking of the teeth, the motion of the jaw, and the like, of the user wearing the eyepiece through a facial actuation sensor) [Miller: col. 82, line 41-46]; (geo-sensing) [Miller: col. 115, line 32-33]) a viewer indication ((the eyepiece may provide for gesture recognition, such as in interpreting hand gestures via mathematical algorithms) [Miller: col. 81, line 15-16]; (identifies a user hand gesture as an interactive control element location command, such as a hand-finger configuration moved in a certain way, positioned in a certain way, and the like) [Miller: col. 93, line 49-50]; (sensors may also be used to stabilize the image or correctly place the image in the user's field of view, such as an accelerometer, a position sensor, a distance sensor, a rangefinder, a biological sensor, a geodetic sensor, an optical sensor, a video sensor, a camera, an infrared sensor, a light sensor, a photocell sensor, or an RF sensor. When a sensor detects user head or eye movement, the sensor provides an output to a processor which may determine the direction, speed, amount, and rate of the user's head or eye movement) [Miller: col. 59, line 6-14]) of an apparent position ((identifies a user hand gesture as an interactive control element location command, such as a hand-finger configuration moved in a certain way, positioned in a certain way, and the like. The location of the interactive control element then may remain fixed in position with respect to an object in the surrounding environment, in response to the interactive control element location command, regardless of a change in the viewing direction of the user.) [Miller: col. 93, line 49-56]; (a wearer may be presented images through the eyepiece that are at a rate the wearer is unaware of, but is subconsciously made aware of as presented content, such as a reminder, an alert (e.g. an alert that calls on the wearer to increase a level of attention to something, but not so much so that the user needs a full conscious reminder), an indication related to the wearer's immediate environment (e.g. the eyepiece has detected something in the wearer's field of view that may have some interest to the wearer, and to which the indication draws the wearer's attention), and the like. In another instance, the eyepiece may provide indicators to the wearer through a brain activity monitoring interface, where electrical signals within the brain fire before a person realizes they've recognized an image. For instance, the brain activity-monitoring interface may include electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors (or the like) to monitor brain activity as the wearer is viewing the current environment. When the eyepiece, through the brain activity-monitoring interface, senses that the wearer has become 'aware' of an element of the surrounding environment, the eyepiece may provide conscious level feedback to the wearer to make the wearer more aware of the element) [Miller: col. 88, line 32– 57]) of said first entity (the image for the left eye) [Miller: col. 205, line 16];
determining (determine) [Miller: col. 210, line 16] an offset (disparity) [Miller: col. 205, line 50] between said ideal position and said apparent position (determine the disparities for the one or more objects of interest) [Miller: col. 210, line 16-17]; (the 3D labels for the objects of interest are displayed to the user's left and right eyes with the disparities to provide the 3D labels at the desired depths) [Miller: col. 209, line 22-24];
determining (determine) [Miller: col. 210, line 16] an adjustment (distance adjustment) [Miller: col. 211, line 42] from said offset (disparity) [Miller: col. 205, line 50], such that an apparent position (the image in the user's field of view) [Miller: col. 59, line 6-7] of said ideal position with said adjustment (In embodiments, the present invention may provide for a mechanical pupil distance adjustment, such as where the optical assembly of the eyepiece is adapted to be user position adjustable within a glasses frame such that the user has the ability to change the position of the optical assembly with respect to the user's eye. The position adjustment may control the horizontal position, the vertical position, the tilt, and the like, of the optical assembly within the glasses frame. In embodiments, the present invention may provide for digital pupil distance adjustment, such as where an integrated processor executes a pupil alignment procedure that enables the user to adjust the position of the placement of the displayed content within a field of view presented on the eyepiece optical assembly to set a pupil alignment calibration factor to be used in the placement of other display content. The calibration factor may comprise horizontal and/or vertical adjustments of the displayed content within the field of view. The calibration factor may comprise a plurality of calibration factors, each representing a distance to a real-world object distance calibration factor to be used when positioning content within the field of view based on a distance to real world object calculation. The calibration factor may comprise a calibration process based on a plurality of calibration factors, each representing a distance to a real-world object distance calibration factor to be used when positioning content within the field of view based on a distance to real-world object calculation.) [Miller: col. 211, line 41-67] is substantially similar to said ideal position absent said adjustment (In embodiments, the present invention may provide for digital pupil distance adjustment, such as where an integrated processor executes a pupil alignment procedure that enables the user to adjust the position of the placement of the displayed content within a field of view presented on the eyepiece optical assembly to set a pupil alignment calibration factor to be used in the placement of other display content. The calibration factor may comprise horizontal and/or vertical adjustments of the displayed content within the field of view. The calibration factor may comprise a plurality of calibration factors, each representing a distance to a real-world object distance calibration factor to be used when positioning content within the field of view based on a distance to real-world object calculation. The calibration factor may comprise a calibration process based on a plurality of calibration factors, each representing a distance to a real-world object distance calibration factor to be used when positioning content within the field of view based on a distance to real-world object calculation.) [Miller: col. 211, line 49-67]; (presenting the labels at the same positions in the image to each eye so the labels are coincident when viewed simultaneously) [Miller: col. 207, line 17-19]); and
thereafter applying (adjusting) [Miller: col. 47, line 6] said adjustment (adjustment) [Miller: col. 211, line 46] to at least one of said first entity and a second entity (In embodiments, the augmented reality eyepiece (AR) of the present invention, e.g., AR eyepiece 100 in FIG. 1, is adapted to determine and/or compensate for the vergence of the user's eyes. Vergence is the simultaneous rotation of the user's eyes around a vertical axis to move their respective optical axes in opposite directions to obtain or maintain binocular vision. When a person looks at a closer object, the person's eyes move their respective optical axes inwardly toward the nose, a composite motion that is known as convergence. To look at a farther object, the person's eyes move their respective optical axes outwardly away from the nose, a composite motion that is known as divergence. The person's eyes diverge until their respective optical axes are essentially parallel to each other when the person is fixating on a point at infinity or very far away. Vergence works in conjunction with eye accommodation to permit a person to maintain a clear image of an object as the object moves relative to the person) [Miller: col. 203, line 8-25].
Miller does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
outputting a first entity in an ideal position in three-dimensional space;
sensing a viewer indication of an apparent position of said first entity;
determining an offset between said ideal position and said apparent position;
determining an adjustment from said offset, such that an apparent position of said ideal position with said adjustment is substantially similar to said ideal position absent said adjustment;
However, in the same field of endeavor Simmons discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
(i.e. ideal position) [Simmons: para. 0429]
((i.e. apparent pixel locations) [Simmons: para. 0124]; (i.e. apparent location (pixel location)) [Simmons: para. 0125]; (i.e. an apparent 3-D image location) [Simmons: para. 0078])
(i.e. ideal position) [Simmons: para. 0429] and said apparent position ((i.e. the apparent position) [Simmons: para. 0289]; (i.e. the apparent location) [Simmons: para. 0129]; (i.e. apparent pixel locations) [Simmons: para. 0124]; (i.e. apparent location (pixel location)) [Simmons: para. 0125]; (i.e. an apparent 3-D image location) [Simmons: para. 0078]);
((i.e. the apparent position) [Simmons: para. 0289]; (i.e. the apparent location) [Simmons: para. 0129]; (i.e. apparent pixel locations) [Simmons: para. 0124]; (i.e. apparent location (pixel location)) [Simmons: para. 0125]; (i.e. an apparent 3-D image location) [Simmons: para. 0078]) (i.e. ideal position) [Simmons: para. 0429] (i.e. ideal position) [Simmons: para. 0429]
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Miller with Simmons to compute the offset between the ideal position and the apparent position.
Therefore, the combination of Miller with Simmons will enable the system to adjust the offset to obtain a good view.
Reference Notice
Additional prior arts, included in the Notice of Reference Cited, made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Dang whose telephone number is (408) 918-7529. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday between 8:30 am - 5:00 pm (PST).
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Philip P. Dang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights