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 .
The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
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.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-26 is/are pending. Claim(s) 12 and 26 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-25 is/are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/17/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 13-20, 22, and 25 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/17/2025, with respect to the Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejections of claims 1-11 and 21-24 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to now require the limitations of former claim 13.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner notes the change in prior art was necessitated by the Applicants amendments.
Applicant argues the UV material of the prior art is not a distinct layer. The Examiner understands this argument to be directed to a UV material that is in a separate layer. The claim language is "at a distal surface" and does not require the argued limitation. Specifically, Liao's UV absorber is throughout the lens and does not form a layer as amended and is not the as argued separate layer.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the UV material that is in a separate layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner notes previously the UV absorber portion of the amendment to claim 1 from claim 11 was one of two options, which was not required previously as the other option in claim 11 was met. Thus, the amendment to claim 1 necessitates the change in the rejection of record.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/30/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Product By Process
The Examiner recognizes claim 9 as a "product-by-process" claim(s). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
As a product claim, Examiner has determined claim(s) 9 require the composite light adjustable lens to comprise the following structural elements in addition to those in the claims from which they depend: the first polymer matrix having a siloxane-based polymer.
In the prior art rejection in this Office action, Examiner considers claim 9 to be met when a reference teaches these structural limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-24 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a diffraction efficiency of an intervening diffractive order is suppressed to less than ten percent.
Applicant’s specification at [0180] and original claim 13 disclose: “a diffraction efficiency of at least one of the diffractive orders is suppressed to less than ten percent.”
Thus, the requirement of an “intervening” order that is not the near, far, or intermediate orders in new matter.
Claim(s) 2-11 and 14-24 are rejected as dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2014/0358226 A1) and further in view of Grubbs, et al (Grubbs) (US 2016/0339657 A1) and further in view of Choi, et al (Choi) (US 2015/0331253 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Cohen teaches a composite light adjustable intraocular lens (e.g. abstract, Figure 1a), comprising:
an acrylic (e.g. [0036], from incorporated US 4,666,640, column 3, lines 29-52) diffractive (e.g. [0029], diffractive element) intraocular lens (#40), having a diffractive structure (e.g.[0029], diffractive element);
a silicone (e.g. [0037], from incorporated US 6,450,642 B1, column 5, lines 5-17) light adjustable lens (#10), attached to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens (e.g. Figure 1a).
Cohen discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach the remainder of the claim including haptics and the silicone light adjustable lens having an ultraviolet absorbing layer at a distal surface of the silicone light adjustable lens (for claim 1) and an ultraviolet-absorber dispersed throughout the silicone light adjustable lens (for claim 11).
Grubbs teaches a light adjustable lens having haptics (e.g. Figure 4A) and the silicone light adjustable lens having an ultraviolet absorbing layer at a distal surface of the silicone light adjustable lens (e.g. [0054], light-adjustable lens has UV absorber layer #310; [0049]-[0050], the light adjustable lens is silicon; [0054] at the posterior surface). According to Applicant’s Specification at [0048], "proximal" and "distal" are used in relation to the light incident from the pupil of the eye. Proximal indicates a position that is closer to the pupil. Thus, “distal” is also posterior along the optical axis. Further, for claim 11, there is an ultraviolet-absorber dispersed throughout the silicone light adjustable lens (e.g. Grubbs, [0035]).
Grubbs and Cohen are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely light adjustable IOLs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cohen such that (1) the IOL has haptics as taught by Grubbs in order to provide an anchoring means for the IOL, which is the known primary function of haptics in the IOL field and (2) the UV absorbing layer on the distal surface of the light adjustable lens and the dispersed ultraviolet-absorber as taught by Grubbs in order to enhance the UV absorbing properties of the LAL and provide additional attenuation to reduce ocular exposure during the lens power adjustment and lock-in procedure (e.g. Grubbs, [0054]).
The combination of Cohen and Grubbs discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach the remainder of the claim, including:
the diffractive structure producing constructive interference in at least four consecutive diffractive orders corresponding a near focal point, a distance focal point, and an intermediate focal point between the near focal point and the distance focal point, and wherein a diffraction efficiency of an intervening diffractive order is suppressed to less than ten percent.
Choi teaches a diffractive structure producing constructive interference in at least four consecutive diffractive orders corresponding to a near focal point, a distance focal point, and an intermediate focal point between the near focal point and the distance focal point (e.g. abstract), and wherein a diffraction efficiency of a diffractive order is suppressed (e.g. abstract) to less than ten percent (e.g. abstract).
Choi and the combination of Cohen and Grubbs are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely IOLs having diffractive elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cohen and Grubbs such that the diffractive structure is that of Choi and thus produces the focal point order as claimed which is taught by Choi in order to provide a known improved multifocal optical device (e.g. Choi, [0006], [0012], [0013]).
The combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach: wherein the suppressed order is of an intervening diffractive order (other than the orders claimed).
Choi teaches an embodiment having five orders, where one of the orders is suppressed (e.g. [0022], abstract).
Choi and the combination of Cohen and Grubbs are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely IOLs having diffractive elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi such that the suppressed order is of an intervening diffractive order as it has been held that solving a recognized problem or need in the art by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try (MPEP 2143(I)). Here, suppressing an intervening order (other than those claimed) allows for tailoring of the diffractive lens to the patient (e.g. Choi, [0012]) and since the intervening order is an additional intermediate order (because the claimed orders are near, far, and two intermediate orders), this suppression provides an intermediate focus that is closer either to distance vision or near vision, which provides a broader range of vision around the respective focus (e.g. Choi, [0013]). Choi teaches a finite number (5 total, 3 intermediate order) of options. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try the above combination of prior art features resulting in the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 2, the silicone light adjustable lens is attached to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens at the diffractive structure, or opposite to the diffractive structure (e.g. Cohen, Figure 1a).
Regarding Claim 3, the silicone light adjustable lens is proximal to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens (e.g. Cohen, Figure 1a, the side where the light adjustable lens is located is considered proximal, [0030], [0032], the lenses can be placed on either side of one another).
Regarding Claim 4, the silicone light adjustable lens is distal to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens (e.g. Cohen, Figure 1a, the side where the light adjustable lens is located is considered distal, [0030], [0032], the lenses can be placed on either side of one another).
Regarding Claim 5, the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens comprising: at least one of a monomer, a macromer, and a polymer, including at least one of an acrylate, an alkyl acrylate, an aryl acrylate, a substituted aryl acrylate, a substituted alkyl acrylate, a vinyl, and copolymers combining alkyl acrylates and aryl acrylates (e.g. Cohen, [0036], from incorporated US 4,666,640, column 3, lines 29-52; multiple methyl acrylates are disclosed).
Regarding Claim 6, the alkyl acrylate comprising: a methyl acrylate, an ethyl acrylate, a phenyl acrylate, and polymers and co-polymers thereof (discussed supra for claim 5).
Regarding Claim 7, at least one of a monomer, a macromer, and a polymer of the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens is having at least one functional group, wherein the functional group includes at least one of hydroxy, amino, and vinyl, mercapto, isocyanate, nitrile, carboxyl, hydride (e.g. Cohen, [0036], from incorporated US 4,666,640, column 3, lines 29-52; at least hydroxy is disclosed), and is one of cationic, anionic and neutral (these options cover all possible options; therefore, this limitation is met by the presence of the functional group limitation).
Regarding Claim 8, the silicone light adjustable lens comprising: a first polymer matrix (e.g. Cohen, [0037], from incorporated US 6,450,642 B1, column 5, lines 5-17); and a refraction modulating composition, dispersed in the first polymer matrix (e.g. Cohen, [0026], #21); wherein the refraction modulating composition is capable of stimulus-induced polymerization that modulates a refraction of the silicone light adjustable lens (e.g. Cohen, [0028]).
Regarding Claim 9, the first polymer matrix comprising: a siloxane-based polymer, formed from macromer and monomer building blocks with at least one of an alkyl group and an aryl group (e.g. Cohen, [0037], from incorporated US 6,450,642 B1, column 5, lines 5-17).
Regarding Claim 10, the silicone light adjustable lens comprising: a photoinitiator, to absorb a refraction modulating illumination; to be activated upon the absorption of the illumination; and to initiate the polymerization of the refraction modulating compound (e.g. Cohen, [0028], the part of the RMC that is actuated by the photo-polymerization).
Regarding Claim 14, the near focal point corresponds to vision at 40 cm, and the intermediate focal point corresponds to vision at 60 cm (e.g. Choi, [0014]).
Regarding Claim 15, the four consecutive diffractive orders are (0, +1, +2, +3); and the suppressed diffractive order is the + 1 diffractive order (e.g. Choi, [0021]).
Regarding Claim 16, the diffractive structure comprises a plurality of annular diffractive steps (e.g. Choi, [0015]); and the diffractive steps have a corresponding step height relative to a base curvature of the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens at consecutive radial step boundaries as follows (e.g. Choi, [0018]), where
PNG
media_image1.png
145
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Ai is a corresponding step height relative to the base curvature of the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens, yi is the height relative to an x-axis in a corresponding segment, Φi is a relative phase delay from the x-axis, and xi is a position of the diffractive step along the x-axis (e.g. Choi, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 17, the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens has an anterior surface and a posterior surface (these surfaces are inherently present); and the diffractive structure is disposed on at least one of the anterior surface and the posterior surface (discussed supra for claims 3-4) the diffractive structure including a plurality of annular diffractive steps and four consecutive diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 1); wherein the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens produces a near focus, an intermediate focus, and a distance focus, each corresponding to a different one of the four consecutive diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 1); the four consecutive diffractive orders include a lowest diffractive order, a highest diffractive order, a near-intermediate diffractive order, and a far-intermediate diffractive order (e.g. Choi, [0022]); and the plurality of annular diffractive steps of the diffractive structure are configured such that the far-intermediate diffractive order is suppressed (discussed supra for claim 15; e.g. Choi, [0013]) and at least a portion of an energy associated with that suppressed diffractive order is redistributed to one of the near focus, the intermediate focus, and the distance focus (e.g. Choi, [0013]).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach:
the plurality of annular diffractive steps are configured such that a diffraction efficiency of the lowest diffractive order for a 3 mm aperture is at least 40%; a diffraction efficiency of the highest diffractive order for the 3 mm aperture is at least 20%; and a diffraction efficiency of each of the near-intermediate diffractive order and the far-intermediate diffractive order for the 3 mm aperture is in the range of 10-20%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi such that the diffraction efficiencies are as claimed because Choi teaches the performance of the lens can be tailored relative to conventional diffractive lenses (e.g. Choi, [0012]). Further, Applicant’s disclosure of these diffraction efficiencies is only at the specification, [0184], which only provides the values. Therefore, there is no criticality to this particular combination of diffraction efficiencies.
Additionally, it has been held that solving a recognized problem or need in the art by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try (MPEP 2143(I)). Here, Choi seeks to improve the performance of multifocal lenses by tailoring them relative to conventional diffractive lenses (e.g. Choi, [0006], [0012]). There are a finite number of options, such as percentages in increments of 1%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try the above combination of prior art features resulting in the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 19, the diffractive structure includes a plurality of annular diffractive steps and four consecutive diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 1); wherein the composite light adjustable intraocular lens produces a near focus, an intermediate focus, and a distance focus, each corresponding to a different one of the four consecutive diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 1); and the plurality of annular diffractive steps of the diffractive structure are configured such that one of the four diffractive orders is suppressed (discussed supra for claim 1) and at least a portion of an energy associated with that suppressed diffractive order is redistributed to one of the near focus, the intermediate focus, and the distance focus (discussed supra for claim 17).
Regarding Claim 20, the four consecutive diffractive orders include a lowest diffractive order, a highest diffractive order, and two intermediate diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 17); and the suppressed diffractive order is one of the two intermediate diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 17).
Regarding Claim 23, an attachment structure, for attaching the silicone light adjustable lens to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens (e.g. Cohen, [0039]-[0040], the bonding region between the materials of the two structures).
Regarding Claim 24, the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens is a toric acrylic diffractive intraocular lens (e.g. Cohen, [0033], from incorporated US 7,572,007 B2, column 10, line 57 – column 11, line 17; Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi teaches a composite light adjustable intraocular lens (discussed supra for claim 1), comprising: an acrylic diffractive intraocular lens, having a diffractive structure and haptics (discussed supra for claim 1); and a silicone light adjustable lens (discussed supra for claim 1), attached to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens (discussed supra for claim 1), wherein the diffractive structure includes a plurality of annular diffractive steps and four consecutive diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 1); wherein the composite light adjustable intraocular lens produces a near focus, an intermediate focus, and a distance focus, each corresponding to a different one of the four consecutive diffractive orders (discussed supra for claim 1); and the plurality of annular diffractive steps of the diffractive structure are configured such that one of the four diffractive orders is suppressed (discussed supra for claim 1) and at least a portion of an energy associated with that suppressed diffractive order is redistributed to one of the near focus, the intermediate focus, and the distance focus (discussed supra for claim 17).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2014/0358226 A1) in view of Grubbs, et al (Grubbs) (US 2016/0339657 A1) in view of Choi, et al (Choi) (US 2015/0331253 A1), as discussed supra and further in view of Liao (US 2010/0211170 A1) and McPherson, et al (McPherson) (US 6,013,855).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach:
the silicone light adjustable lens is attached to the acrylic diffractive intraocular lens with an adhesion promoter, wherein the adhesion promoter includes a first orthogonal functional group, configured to bond with an acrylic component of the acrylic intraocular insert; and a second orthogonal functional group, configured to bond with a silicone component of the silicone-based light adjustable lens.
Liao teaches the use of methacryloxypropyltris(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane in any layer of an intraocular lens device (e.g. [0103], abstract) and
McPherson teaches methacryloxypropyltris(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane is used as an adhesive (coupling agent) (e.g. column 8, line 53 to column 9, line 36) in implantable devices (e.g. column 5, lines 15-22).
Liao and the combination of Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely polymeric IOLs. McPherson is concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely adhesion of implant components using methacryloxypropyltris(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cohen, Grubbs, and Choi by incorporating an adhesion layer of methacryloxypropyltris(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane as taught by Liao and McPherson as a means of adhering together the layers of the IOL (acrylic diffractive intraocular lens and light adjustable layer).
Regarding Claim 22, the adhesion promoter has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
266
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of R3, R3’ and R3” is a vinyl dialkylsiloxy pendant group with the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
250
250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the remaining of R3, R3’ and R3” are independently selected from the group consisting of C1-C10 pendant alkyl groups, that includes methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, cyclopropyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, t-butyl, cyclobutyl, or methylcyclopropyl;
the first orthogonal functional group is the functional group to the left of R2;
the second orthogonal functional group is R6;
R1 is selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen, a monovalent hydrocarbon group, and a substituted C1-C12 alkyl, wherein the alkyl being methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, cyclopropyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, t-butyl, cyclobutyl, or methylcyclopropyl;
R2 is an alkyl spacer with 1-10 carbon atoms;
R4 and R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of C1-C10 pendant alkyl groups, that includes methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, cyclopropyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, t-butyl, cyclobutyl, or methylcyclopropyl; and
R6 is one of a vinyl group, a vinyloxy group, an allyl group, an allyloxy group, and a group with a carbon chain C1-C10.
The adhesion promoter is methacryloxypropyltris(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane as discussed supra for claim 21. See Applicant’s specification at [0129] and [0133]-[0134], which shows this prior art adhesion promoter is found in the claimed R-group options.
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 LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on (408) 918-7557. 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.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 5/5/2025
Prosecution Insights