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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 4, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Particularly, a copy of WO2006009193 has not been provided; and the copies of JP2012-198423 and JP215-210440 only have the first page and are otherwise largely blank, i.e. a legible copy has not been provided. Therefore, these references have been crossed out and they have not been considered, however the other documents in the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed September 23, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Particularly, the copies of JP2003-510648 and JP2010-217384 only have the first page and are otherwise largely blank, i.e. a legible copy has not been provided. Further, information disclosure statement also fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Particularly, the no explanation of the relevance in English of JP2010-217384 have been provided. Therefore, these references have been crossed out and they have not been considered, however the other documents in the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments
As previously discussed, the claimed function of objects may be concealed from the observer, such as in claim 14. In light of the specification, concealment is a possible benefit/function and is not present in all situations. Indeed claim 15 (dependent on 14) claims seeing through the invention in a viewing region which is interpreted to mean that there are positions/ranges where image light from an object through the lens sheet is in focus and observable in a viewing range. Taken in a whole the examiner concludes that the invention has the following possibilities:
Observer/object on both the first and second sides sufficiently outside of their respective focal planes, resulting in a blurred view from both sides (i.e. camouflaged)
Observer/object on both the first and second sides sufficiently inside of their respective focal planes (i.e. viewing region), resulting in a clear view from both sides (i.e. not camouflaged/viewable/recognizable)
One of the observer/object on one side sufficiently inside of the focal plane (i.e. viewing region) and the other observer/object on the other side sufficiently outside of the focal plane, resulting in a blurred view from one side (i.e. camouflaged) and a clear view from the other side (i.e. not camouflaged/viewable/recognizable)
Thus, there inherently exist positions for an observer and/or an object where the object would be observable and this limitation recites a description of a possible capability/function/result achieved by the invention if the object and are properly placed with respect to the double-sided lens sheet that naturally necessarily flows from the structure.
Priority
As previously noted, for applicant’s information, for purpose of prior art, independent claim 21 and its dependent are not supported by provisional patents 62/693959 or 62/732240 and therefore claims 21-22 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of these provisional patents. Specifically, the claim lack support in the provisional patent because it has no reference to “wherein corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses have an offset relationship relative to their respective edges such that each pair of said corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses is offset … and wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a first density and the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a second density different from the first density” as recited in amended claim 21.
Further, regarding claim 22, PCT/CA2019/000019 does not have support for “the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density” as recited in claim 22. Therefore, claim 22 is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the international filing.
Therefore, claim 21 is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of PCT/CA2019/000019 of June 26, 2019, and claim 22 is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the instant application of January 4, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14-16, 19-22 and 26-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 14 and 21 “the double-sided lens sheet is integral and the first plurality of elongate lenses are directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the scope of “integral” and “directly attached” are in conflict (i.e. one piece versus two pieces joined together) or if they are indirectly claiming a means of manufacture where two pieces are made integral. Further, the scope of “directly attached” is unclear since it is unclear if the two sheets are attached to each other using an adhesive qualifies as “directly attached” or if an adhesive layer is not allowed. Looking to the specification:
– paragraph [0086] states in part:
… A double-sided lens sheet can be constructed by affixing or gluing together the flat smooth sides of a pair of single-sided lens sheets back-to-back or by manufacturing a single sheet having lenses on both sides.
– paragraph [0238] states in part:
… a double-sided lens sheet may be constructed from a pair of single-sided lens sheets. The double-sided lens sheet may be constructed by permanently or temporarily bonding, gluing or otherwise affixing together, the smooth sides of a pair of single-sided lens sheets back to back …
– and paragraph [0247] states in part:
In other embodiments, a double-sided lens sheet may be constructed or manufactured integrally as a single piece ...
Thus, specification sets forth multiple embodiments including that the double-sided lens sheet can be formed/manufactured as a single sheet with lenses on both sides or by gluing two single-sided lens sheets together. However, while not supported by the specification, two single-sided lens sheets made of plastic or glass could be joined together solvent welding or optical contact bonding, respectively, which could be broadly interpreted as making the two sheets into an integral unit. There are four possible interpretations for “the double-sided lens sheet is integral and the first plurality of elongate lenses are directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses”
“the double-sided lens sheet is integral
“the double-sided lens sheet has the first plurality of elongate lenses directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses” (as supported by at least paragraphs [0086 & 0238]); or
“the double-sided lens sheet is integral or the first plurality of elongate lenses are directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses” (as supported by at least paragraphs [0086, 0238 & 0247]); or
“the double-sided lens sheet is integral and the first plurality of elongate lenses are directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses” (unsupported1, see below)
The third interpretation is the broadest reasonable interpretation and is generally supported by the specification. Regarding “directly attached,” in light paragraphs [0086 & 0238] the examiner is interpreting the use of a glue to attach the two sheets to qualify as “directly attached.” For clarity, the examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “substantially directly attached” thereby eliminating elements between the sheets that would substantially impact the double sheet, such as patterns/images, see at least paragraphs [0236-37]. For purposes of examination the examiner the examiner will use “the double-sided lens sheet is integral or the first plurality of elongate lenses are substantially directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses”.
Claims 15-16, 19-20 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 21 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Further regarding claim 21 “the second side having predetermined width” has antecedent issues. It is unclear if the predetermined width is the same predetermined width introduced earlier in the claim (assumed) or if it is a new/different predetermined width. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “the second side having the same predetermined width” – similar to claim 14.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 21 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
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.
Claims 14-16, 19-22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 14 and 21 “the double-sided lens sheet is integral and the first plurality of elongate lenses are directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses”, as presented, amounts to prohibited new matter. Applicant appears to be mixing embodiments and/or introducing new matter. The discloses embodiment 3.1 “making a double-sided lens sheet (permanent bonding)” using glue (see paragraph [0238]). The specification also discloses embodiment 3.3 “making a double-sided lens sheet (integral single piece)”by integrally manufacturing (see paragraph [0247]). There is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in the specification that would support two sheets into an integrated by solvent welding of plastic or optical contact bonding of glass, which could be broadly interpreted as making two plastic/glass elements into an integrated element. Either applicant is mixing two embodiments (integrally formed versus two elements glued together) without support in the specification, as originally filed, support for such a mixing is not expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure, nor has applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, see MPEP 21632 – and/or – the claim implicitly contains unclaimed subject matter (e.g. solvent welding of plastic or optical contact bonding of glass) which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed. Applicant could obviate this rejection by adopting the interpretation used for examination noted in the 112(b) rejection above.
Claims 15-16, 19-20 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for introducing prohibited new matter, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for introducing prohibited new matter, since it depends on claim 21 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Further regarding claim 22 (dependent of 21) “wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density” amounts to prohibited new matter. Applicant appears to be mixing embodiments3. Claim 21 requires “wherein the diameters of each of the first plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal; wherein the diameters of each of the second plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal and less than the diameters of each of the first plurality of elongate lenses … and wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a first density and the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a second density different from the first density” as seen in figures 26a-26b and paragraph [0214] that states in part:
FIGS. 26a-26b are simplified schematic diagrams of an elevation view and plan view, respectively of a double-sided lens sheet disposed between an observer and a background where the two sides have different LPI. The larger lens (e.g. 75 LPI) is close to the target while the smaller lens (100 LPI) is closer to the viewer ...
And paragraph [0296], which states:
In other embodiments, a double-sided sheet may be same LPI with different angles. A lens sheet assembly having two double-sided sheets may be made up of a first double-sided lens sheet with identical LPI of a first density (e.g., 100 LPI) on both sides and a second double-sided sheet having different density (e.g., 75 LPI) but identical on both sides.
However, there is no support for a double sided lens sheet with first side having each of the lenticules have the same first diameter and at a first, third and fourth densities, where at least the third and fourth densities are different – and – the other side having each of the lenticules have the same second diameter, different from the first side’s same first diameters, and at a second, third and fourth densities, where the second density is different from the first density and at least the third and fourth densities are different. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume support exists.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-16, 21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebina et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0169332, of record.
Regarding claim 14 Ebina discloses a double-sided lens sheet (title e.g. figure 14A dual-lens sheet 30a) comprising: a first side (e.g. front surface 31a) comprising a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses (paragraph [0115] “half-column-cylindrical-convex-lens” see figure 14A), the first side defining a predetermined width (see figure 14A); and a second side directly opposite the first side (e.g. back surface 32a), the second side comprising a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses (paragraph [0115] “half-column-cylindrical-convex-lens” see figure 14A), the second side having the same predetermined width (see figure 14A); wherein each of the first plurality of elongate lenses, and the second plurality of elongate lenses are (i) made of a substantially light transmissive material (paragraph [0163] “[f]or a lens array layer, plastic member which is as transparent as plastic member and glass member is preferable”) and (ii) disposed substantially in parallel (paragraph [0115] “longitudinal directions of the lens sections 31, 32 are the same (FIG. 14A)” see figure 14A); wherein the diameters of each of the first plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal (see figure 14A); wherein the diameters of each of the second plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal (see figure 14A) and less than the diameters of each of the first plurality of elongate lenses (see figure 14A); wherein one or more opposing ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses have an offset relationship relative to their respective edges (see figure 14A); wherein the double-sided lens sheet is integral or the first plurality of elongate lenses are substantially directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses (see figure 14A); and wherein the double-sided lens sheet is capable of creating a zone of concealment outside of a focal plane when the double-sided lens sheet is placed between an object and an observer, and the object is concealed from the observer when placed in the zone of concealment (inherent capability4 given the physical property that a lens sheet could be so placed to have an object sufficiently out of focus to obfuscate an observer’s view, see interpretation in examiner’s comments above).
Regarding claim 15 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Ebina further discloses wherein a viewing region is formed such that a viewer in the zone of concealment behind one of the first or second side can see through the viewing region while concealed from the observer viewing the opposite second or first side respectively (such regions would inherently exist for a lens/lenticular sheet, see examiner’s comments above).
Regarding claim 16 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Ebina further discloses where each of the elongate lenses is a lenticule, a dove prism lens, a prism lens or a half dove prism lens (paragraph [0115] “half-column-cylindrical-convex-lens” a.k.a. a lenticule see figure 14A).
Regarding claim 26 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Ebina further discloses wherein one or more of; an antireflective layer, antireflective coating, film, mesh cover, textured surface or overlay is disposed on at least one of the sides of the lens sheet to reduce reflection or improve shadow reduction (paragraph [0027] “hardcoat layer or a anti-reflection layer (hereinafter called AR layer) are provided an outermost surface”).
Regarding claim 27 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Ebina further discloses further comprising a protective layer formed by coating with protective elements to protect said elongate lenses against one or more of fog, water, fire, dirt, dust, scratches, heat, cold, and ultraviolet rays (paragraph [0027] “hardcoat layer … provided an outermost surface”).
Regarding claim 21 Ebina discloses a double-sided lens sheet (title e.g. figure 14A dual-lens sheet 30a) comprising: a first side (e.g. 31a) consisting of a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses (paragraph [0115] “half-column-cylindrical-convex-lens” see figure 14A), the first side defining a predetermined width (see figure 14A); and a second side directly opposite the first side (e.g. 32a), the second side consisting of a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses (paragraph [0115] “half-column-cylindrical-convex-lens” see figure 14A), the second side having the same predetermined width (see figure 14A); wherein each of the first plurality of elongate lenses, and the second plurality of elongate lenses are (i) made of a substantially light transmissive material and (paragraph [0163] “[f]or a lens array layer, plastic member which is as transparent as plastic member and glass member is preferable”) (ii) disposed substantially in parallel (paragraph [0115] “longitudinal directions of the lens sections 31, 32 are the same (FIG. 14A)” see figure 14A); wherein the diameters of each of the first plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal (see figure 14A); wherein the diameters of each of the second plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal and less than the diameters of each of the first plurality of elongate lenses (see figure 14A); wherein one or more opposing ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses have an offset relationship relative to their respective edges (see figure 14A); wherein the double-sided lens sheet is capable of creating a zone of concealment outside of a focal plane when the double-sided lens sheet is placed between an object and an observer, and the object is concealed from the observer when placed in the zone of concealment (inherent capability5 given the physical property that a lens sheet could be so placed to have an object sufficiently out of focus to obfuscate an observer’s view, see interpretation in examiner’s comments above); wherein the double-sided lens sheet is integral or the first plurality of elongate lenses are substantially directly attached to the second plurality of elongate lenses (see figure 14A); and wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a first density and the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a second density different from the first density (abstract “a half-column-cylindrical-convex-lens is used in a lens sheet having lens sections on front surface and a back surface such that pitch ratio for disposing the unit lenses on the front surface and the back surface is in a range of 1:2 to 1:30 and disposition directions of the lens sections are uniform” see figure 14A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebina et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0169332, of record, in view of Samec et al. US Patent 5,763,054, of record.
Regarding claims 19-20 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Ebina does not disclose it is further comprising a mesh disposed on at least one of the first and second sides, as recited by claim 19; and wherein the mesh is one of: black, white, chromatic color or clear in color, as recited by claim 20.
Applicant’s stated issue is the need to reduce reflections (instant application paragraph [00276]).
Samec discloses an antireflection coating for optical elements (title & abstract), addressing applicant’s stated issue. Samec teaches the antireflection element includes a mesh disposed on at least one of the first and second sides (abstract “includes one or more layers of a woven plastic mesh material that may be layered on the surface of an optical element such as the lens” see figure 4) and wherein the mesh is one of: black, white, chromatic color or clear in color (black, white, colored or clear covers all possibilities, further column 3 line 19 “a material that is transparent”) for the purpose of reducing reflection (column 1 lines 6-15). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the double-sided lens sheet as disclosed by Ebina to have a black, white, chromatic color or clear mesh disposed on at least one of the first and second sides as taught by Samec for the purpose of reducing reflection thereby addressing applicant’s stated issue.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebina et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0169332, of record, in view of Dona et al. US Patent 6,381,071, of record.
Regarding claim 22 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 21, as set forth above. Ebina does not disclose wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density.
Dona disclose a similar double-sided lens sheet (title “Lenticular Device” e.g. figure 8) comprising: a first side (e.g. side layer 52) comprising a first plurality of lenses (e.g. microlenses 55 in lenticular array 54); and a second side directly opposite the first side (e.g. side layer 53), the second side comprising a second plurality of lenses (e.g. microlenses 57 in lenticular array 56); wherein each of the first plurality of lenses (e.g. 55), and second plurality of lenses (e.g. 57) are (i) made of a substantially light transmissive material (abstract “transparent sheet”) and (ii) disposed substantially in parallel (see figure 8), and wherein corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of lenses (e.g. 55 & 57) have an offset relationship (e.g. see center spacings t1-t5 in figure 8) relative to their respective edges such that each pair of said corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of lenses is offset (e.g. see figure 8) so that upon placing the lens sheet between an object and an observer, a zone of concealment is formed and upon the object being placed in the zone, the object is concealed from the observer (an unfocused region would inherently exist for a lens/lenticular sheet); wherein the double-sided lens sheet is integrally formed (see figure 8); and wherein the first plurality of lenses (e.g. 55) comprises lenses at a first density (e.g. t1) and the second plurality of lenses (e.g. 57) comprises lenses at a second density (e.g. t5) different from the first density (see figure 8 e.g. column 7 line 61 gives an example of t1=336mm & lines 65-67 gives an example of t5=326mm); and further discloses wherein the first plurality of lenses (e.g. 55) comprises lenses at a third density (e.g. t2) and a fourth density (e.g. t3) different from the third density (column 7 lines 54-63 e.g. line 61 “t2=340 mm, t3=333 mm”) for the purpose of creating a visual effect that is difficult identify (inter alia column 8 lines 24-32). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the double-sided lens sheet as disclosed by Ebina to have the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density as taught by Dona for the purpose of creating a visual effect that is difficult identify.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed September 3, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections based on Woodgate have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Ebina (and/or Dona) failing to disclose that the double-sided lens sheet is “integral” and first plurality of lenses being “directly attached” to the second plurality of lenses, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner agrees that Ebina paragraph [0118] indicates that the two sheets are joined by an adhesive. As set forth in the 112 section above, using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, particularly instant application paragraphs [0086 & 00238] indicating gluing two sheets, “directly attached” is allowing a glue/adhesive layer. Regarding potential shading elements, since the elements are “potential” this is interpreted as optional. Further, in arguendo, it has been held omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired, see MPEP 2144.04 II.A. Further, in arguendo, if one were to interpret a double-sided lens sheet that is “integral” and two lens sheets “directly attached” to each other eliminates a glue/adhesive layer – it has been held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice" In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) see MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hotchner US Patent 2,639,918, of record; in regards to a similar double-sided lens sheet (see figure 5) that is integral (column 8 lines 40-43).
Lemelson US Patent 2,951,419; in regards to a similar double-sided lens sheet (see figure 5) that is integral (column 2 lines 50-57).
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 October 3, 2026
1 In the case that applicant is claiming the fourth unsupported interpretation – either applicant is mixing embodiments and/or introducing new matter, see below.
2 Applicant appears to be mixing two embodiments without support in the specification, as originally filed, support for such a mixing is not expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure, nor has applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, see MPEP 2163. It has been held that “it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
3 Ibid.
4 It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
5 Ibid In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138, MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
Prosecution Insights