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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 2/23/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are amended. Claim 9 was previously cancelled by the applicant. Claims 1-8 and 10-22 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis US PGPub 2019/0183635 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/22/2025, hereinafter, “Macinnis”) in view of AlQattan, Bader, Ali K. Yetisen, and Haider Butt. "Direct laser writing of nanophotonic structures on contact lenses." ACS Nano 12.6 (2018): 5130-5140 (of record, see Office action dated 12/05/2025, hereinafter, “AlQattan”) and Zhan et al. US PGPub 2018/0246262 A1 (hereinafter, “Zhan”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Macinnis discloses an ophthalmic lens (refer to at least title and abstract disclosing ophthalmic devices), comprising:
a hybrid plano-convex refractive lens body having a convex portion and a planar portion (Fig. 1, IOL implant 100 includes metalens 104 that is planar, pars. [0047-48], and Macinnis teaches IOL implant 100 may be formed with posterior convexity, par. [0059], and Macinnis teaches embodiments of the disclosure are not limited to the specific devices/implants shown in the drawings, par. [0098], therefore Macinnis teaches an embodiment of implant 100 that is plano-convex); and
a metasurface array associated with the planar portion (Fig. 1, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 that interact with visible light and are arranged on substrate 106, and metalens 104 is encapsulated by lens body 102, par. [0047], and as shown in Fig. 2, subwavelength structures 108 are on the planar portion of metalens 104), the planar portion having a first portion and a second portion comprising an arrangement of metasurface building elements disposed on a surface of the lens body, the arrangement of metasurface building elements tuned to define an optical characteristic of the ophthalmic lens (metalens 104 includes multiple zones, wherein different distributions of subwavelength structures 108 in one zone may have one or more dimensions or distribution patterns that differ from one or more other zones, par. [0054], and the specific arrangement of the subwavelength structures 108 depends on the desired refractive outcomes, par. [0062]), wherein the optical characteristic comprises:
a glare reduction of the ophthalmic lens by a reduction in halo,
a reduction of a lens aberration (subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 are customized to correct eye conditions, such as spherical and chromatic aberration, par. [0092]), or
an expansion of an angle of a vertical or horizontal field of view;
wherein the second portion comprises fewer metasurface building elements per unit area on the surface of the lens body than the first portion (Fig. 2 depicts intraocular implant 100 in a side view, and as shown in Fig. 1 metalens 104 has a circular area 112 that does not include subwavelength structures, and other areas on metalens 104 that do include subwavelength structures, par. [0054], thus teaching at least two different densities of subwavelength structures across the lens body of implant 100) and the planar portion comprising a first metasurface building element having a first directional orientation and a second metasurface building element having a second directional orientation, wherein the first directional orientation is different than the second directional orientation (subwavelength structures 108 alter an incoming wavefront in a nonrefractive, non-diffractive manner by virtue of the orientation of the structures, among other characteristics, par. [0035], and in Fig. 1 Macinnis teaches the subwavelength structures 108 may be arranged with various tilt angles relative to one another, par. [0052], thus teaching nanostructures with dissimilar orientations across the metalens),
the metasurface array further comprises a material platform for holding the metasurface building elements in a meta-design (Figs. 1 and 2, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 arranged on substrate 106, par. [0047], therefore Macinnis discloses a material platform, substrate 106, for holding the metasurface building elements, i.e., subwavelength structures 108, and as shown in at least Fig. 3, nanofins 302 are an example of subwavelength structures that are disposed in an array 300, par. [0062], where a meta-design is equivalent to an array as best understood by the Examiner).
Macinnis does not disclose the surface of the lens body and the arrangement of metasurface building elements define an environment-facing surface of the ophthalmic lens (as shown in Fig. 2, implant 100 includes metalens 104 comprised of subwavelength structures 108 arranged on substrate 106 and encapsulated by body 102, therefore the metalens 104 does not define an environment-facing surface of implant 100), nor does Macinnis disclose the material platform comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN) (Macinnis teaches substrate 106 may be a transparent polymer or another light-transmissive material, and that the subwavelength structures 108 may be of dielectric material such as titanium dioxide, but Macinnis does not specify a substrate of titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride).
In the same field of invention, AlQattan discloses a holographic laser ablation method to produce optical nanostructures on contact lenses (see Fig. 1, page 5131, first column, last paragraph thereof). Synthetic black dye on the contact lens surface was selectively ablated to form a holographic nanograting structure (page 5132, first column, first paragraph). The nanostructures were fabricated on the contact lenses (see at least Figs. 1c and 1d thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of AlQattan to the disclosure of Macinnis and used a laser interference system to produce nanostructures directly on a variety of soft and hard materials to produce low-cost optical nanostructures rapidly by direct laser interference patterning (AlQattan, page 5131, first column). The prior art combination therefore teaches and renders obvious the limitation the metasurface array defining an environment-facing surface of the ophthalmic lens, as the method taught by AlQattan requires fabrication of the nanostructures directly on the environment-facing surface of a contact lens.
In the same field of invention, Zhan discloses metasurfaces of silicon nitride formed on a substrate (refer to at least title and abstract thereof), and Zhan discloses functioning diffractive lenses were successfully formed from silicon nitride (par. [0065] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Zhan to the disclosure of Macinnis and formed subwavelength structures of silicon nitride on a substrate of silicon nitride, because Macinnis teaches the substrate may be another light-transmissive material other than a polymer, and Zhan teaches silicon nitride has low visible absorption (par. [0099] thereof) and silicon nitride is desirable as this material does not suffer from absorption losses due to a wide band gap and also exhibits similar performance to other material platforms (par. [0110] thereof).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, and Macinnis discloses wherein: the planar portion defines a substantially planar surface of the hybrid plano-convex refractive lens body (Macinnis Fig. 2, metalens 104 is planar, par. [0048]); and the metasurface array is arranged on the substantially planar surface (Macinnis Fig. 2, subwavelength structures 108 are arranged on metalens 104, par. [0048]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 2, and Macinnis further discloses wherein: the convex portion defines a convex surface arranged opposite the substantially planar surface (Fig. 1, IOL implant 100 includes metalens 104 that is planar, pars. [0047-48], and Macinnis teaches IOL implant 100 may be formed with posterior convexity, par. [0059], therefore Macinnis teaches an embodiment of implant 100 that is plano-convex with the convex surface opposite the planar surface of metalens 104).
Macinnis does not explicitly disclose the convex portion is configured to define a refractive characteristic of the ophthalmic lens. However, Macinnis teaches the substrate of the metalens 104 may be any suitable substantially light-transmissive or transparent material, such as a High Refractive Index Polymer (HRIP) nano-composite material (par. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have adjusted the curvature of the convex portion of implant 100 according to the desired refractive outcomes which, along with the known refractive index of the substrate 106, will define a refractive characteristic of implant 100 (Macinnis, pars. [0046-47]).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the planar portion is formed from a titanium dioxide material (Macinnis discloses metalens 104 has subwavelength structures 108 of TiO2, pars. [0038-40], [0047], and metalens 104 is planar, par. [0048]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the arrangement of metasurface building elements comprises meta-atoms having a canonical shape or a freeform shape (Fig. 3, subwavelength structures 108 can be nanofins, par. [0051], where nanofin-type subwavelength structures may be rectangular prism-shaped elements, par. [0052], and rectangular prisms are an example of a canonical shape, therefore Macinnis discloses canonical shapes for the subwavelength structures).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Devlin et al. US PGPub 2018/0341090 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 10/07/2024 , hereinafter, “Devlin”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the arrangement of metasurface building elements comprises meta-atoms (Fig. 1, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 that interact with visible light and are arranged on substrate 106, and metalens 104 is encapsulated by lens body 102 of implant 100, par. [0047]).
The prior art combination of Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan does not explicitly disclose meta-atoms defining a spatially varying Jones' matrix.
In the same field of invention, Devlin teaches an optical component with a waveplate coated in nanostructures (refer to par. [0076] thereof), and Devlin teaches Jones calculus can be used to model an output state of input polarized light (refer to par. [0106] thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Devlin to the disclosure of Macinnis to employ Jones calculus and Jones matrices to represent the effect of polarized light interacting with subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 of Macinnis (refer to Devlin par. [0106]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schonbrun, Ethan, Kwanyong Seo, and Kenneth B. Crozier. "Reconfigurable imaging systems using elliptical nanowires." Nano Letters 11.10 (2011): 4299-4303 (of record, see Office action dated 10/07/2024, hereinafter, “Schonbrun”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Zhan discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the arrangement of metasurface building elements comprises meta-atoms (Fig. 1 of Macinnis, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 that interact with visible light and are arranged on substrate 106, and metalens 104 is encapsulated by lens body 102 of implant 100, par. [0047]) that are configured to induce focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens (the height, width, tilt and separation of the subwavelength structures disclosed by Macinnis are parameters that determine the focus of the ophthalmic lens, par. [0064]).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose meta-atoms that are configured to induce a polarization-dependent focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens.
In a related field of invention, Schonbrun discloses polarization-dependent focusing of light with nanowire lenses (refer to Abstract and page 4302 column 1 and see at least Fig. 4 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Schonbrun to the disclosure of Macinnis to configure subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 to focus light received by implant 100 depending on polarization of the incoming light, for use in micro-optical systems (refer to Schonbrun page 4303 column 1).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Zhan-Schonbrun combination discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 5, and Schonbrun further discloses wherein: the polarization-dependent focusing of light is configured to define the ophthalmic lens as a multifocal lens with at least a first focal point and a second focal point based on a polarization state of the received light (Schonbrun teaches nanowire lenses with two polarization-encoded focal lengths, see at least Figure 4 thereof); and
the meta-atoms are configured to reduce an interference between the first focal point and the second focal point in response to an orthogonality of the polarization states (Schonbrun teaches a two-level phase grating for one polarization and a second completely independent two-level phase grating for the other polarization, refer to page 4300, column 1, second paragraph, equivalent to reduced interference between first and second focal points of the polarization states passing through the lens).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Zhan, and Schonbrun as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Rogers US Patent 3,617,114 A (of record, see Office action dated 10/07/2024, hereinafter, “Rogers”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Zhan, and Schonbrun discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 5, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the polarization-dependent focusing of light is configured to reduce a glare/halo characteristic of the ophthalmic lens.
In a related field of invention, Rogers teaches spectacles with polarizing material to reduce glare (col. 1 lines 15-20 thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Rogers to the disclosure of Macinnis and considered the glare-reducing properties of subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 that focuses light based on polarization state of the illumination, so as to reduce brightness and glare of an ophthalmic lens wearer (Rogers, col. 2, lines 25-30).
Claims 11-12, 14, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis, AlQattan, Zhan, Schonbrun, and She et al. US PGPub 2019/0025477 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/22/2025, hereinafter, “She”).
Regarding amended independent claim 11, Macinnis discloses a method of forming a metasurface array on a surface of an ophthalmic lens (see at least Fig. 7 showing a flowchart of a method for making an ophthalmic device according to some embodiments), comprising:
determining a function of a metasurface array for an ophthalmic lens (Macinnis teaches the specific arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is dependent upon the desired refractive outcome, par. [0062]), the function comprising a glare reduction of the ophthalmic lens by a reduction in halo, a reduction of lens aberration (subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 are customized to correct eye conditions, such as spherical and chromatic aberration, par. [0092]), or an expansion of an angle of a vertical or horizontal field of view;
determining a geometric shape and directional orientation of meta-atoms of the metasurface array based on the function and the geometry of the ophthalmic lens (as noted above, Macinnis teaches the specific arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is dependent upon the desired refractive outcome, par. [0062], and Macinnis teaches the subwavelength structures have dimensions that are less than the wavelengths of the radiation with which they are intended to interact, and the subwavelength structures are arranged in a pattern which alters an incoming wavefront in a nonrefractive, non-diffractive manner by virtue of the composition, shape, orientation, height and diameter of the structures, par. [0035], and Macinnis teaches an example of nanofin-type subwavelength structures with specific height, width, thickness, spacing, and tilt angle to interact with green light, par. [0052]), the meta-atoms configured to be formed on a surface of the ophthalmic lens; tuning the meta-atoms to induce focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens (the height, width, tilt and separation of the subwavelength structures are parameters that determine the focus of the ophthalmic lens, par. [0064]),
the metasurface array further comprises a material platform for holding the metasurface building elements in a meta-design (Figs. 1 and 2, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 arranged on substrate 106, par. [0047], therefore Macinnis discloses a material platform, substrate 106, for holding the metasurface building elements, i.e., subwavelength structures 108, and as shown in at least Fig. 3, nanofins 302 are an example of subwavelength structures that are disposed in an array 300, par. [0062], where a meta-design is equivalent to an array as best understood by the Examiner).
Macinnis does not explicitly disclose a metasurface array on an environment-facing surface, and Macinnis does not disclose the meta-atoms are configured to induce a polarization-dependent focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens, wherein the polarization-dependent focusing of light defines the ophthalmic lens as a multifocal lens with at least a first focal point and a second focal point based on a polarization state of the received light, and Macinnis does not explicitly disclose forming a meta-atom library comprising meta-atoms having the geometric shape and directional orientation, nor does Macinnis disclose the meta-atoms are configured to reduce an interference between the first focal point and the second focal point in response to an orthogonality of the polarization states, and Macinnis does not disclose the material platform comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN) (Macinnis teaches substrate 106 may be a transparent polymer or another light-transmissive material, and that the subwavelength structures 108 may be of dielectric material such as titanium dioxide, but Macinnis does not specify a substrate of titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride).
In the same field of invention, AlQattan discloses a holographic laser ablation method to produce optical nanostructures on contact lenses (see Fig. 1, page 5131, first column, last paragraph thereof). Synthetic black dye on the contact lens surface was selectively ablated to form a holographic nanograting structure (page 5132, first column, first paragraph). The nanostructures were fabricated on the contact lenses (see at least Figs. 1c and 1d thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of AlQattan to the disclosure of Macinnis and used a laser interference system to produce nanostructures directly on a variety of soft and hard materials to produce low-cost optical nanostructures rapidly by direct laser interference patterning (AlQattan, page 5131, first column). The prior art combination therefore teaches and renders obvious the limitation the metasurface array defining an environment-facing surface of the ophthalmic lens, as the method taught by AlQattan requires fabrication of the nanostructures directly on the environment-facing surface of a contact lens.
The Macinnis-AlQattan combination does not disclose the meta-atoms are configured to induce a polarization-dependent focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens, wherein the polarization-dependent focusing of light defines the ophthalmic lens as a multifocal lens with at least a first focal point and a second focal point based on a polarization state of the received light, and the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose forming a meta-atom library comprising meta-atoms having the geometric shape and directional orientation, nor does the prior art combination disclose the meta-atoms are configured to reduce an interference between the first focal point and the second focal point in response to an orthogonality of the polarization states, and the Macinnis-AlQattan combination does not disclose the material platform comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN).
In a related field of invention, Schonbrun discloses polarization-dependent focusing of light with nanowire lenses (Schonbrun teaches nanowire lenses with two polarization-encoded focal lengths, refer to Abstract, page 4302 column 1, and see at least Figure 4 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Schonbrun to the disclosure of Macinnis to configure subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 to focus light received by implant 100 depending on polarization of the incoming light, for use in micro-optical systems (refer to Schonbrun page 4303 column 1), and because Schonbrun teaches a two-level phase grating for one polarization and a second completely independent two-level phase grating for the other polarization (refer to page 4300, column 1, second paragraph), the prior art combination of Macinnis in view of AlQattan and Schonbrun teaches and renders obvious the equivalent of reduced interference between first and second focal points of the polarization states passing through the lens.
The Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun combination does not disclose forming a meta-atom library comprising meta-atoms having the geometric shape and directional orientation, and the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun combination does not disclose the material platform comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN).
In the same field of invention, She discloses a method of generating a layout data file for metasurface devices (refer to at least the abstract, Figs. 6 and 7, and claim 1 thereof), including forming a library set of metasurface elements comprising meta-atoms having the desired geometric shape and directional orientations (refer to at least Fig. 3 thereof depicting an exemplary design of a metasurface lens, with the design of metasurface lens elements stored in library references, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of She to the disclosure of Macinnis and stored the design information for subwavelength structures 108, such as shape and orientation among other relevant dimensions and parameters, in a data format such as that of She, as the method disclosed therein is a highly efficient method of representing metasurface element data (She, par. [0023]).
The Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She combination does not disclose the material platform comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN).
In the same field of invention, Zhan discloses metasurfaces of silicon nitride formed on a substrate (refer to at least title and abstract thereof), and Zhan discloses functioning diffractive lenses were successfully formed from silicon nitride (par. [0065] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Zhan to the disclosure of Macinnis and formed subwavelength structures of silicon nitride on a substrate of silicon nitride, because Macinnis teaches the substrate may be another light-transmissive material other than a polymer, and Zhan teaches silicon nitride has low visible absorption (par. [0099] thereof) and silicon nitride is desirable as this material does not suffer from absorption losses due to a wide band gap and also exhibits similar performance to other material platforms (par. [0110] thereof).
Regarding amended dependent claim 12, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 11, and Macinnis further discloses wherein: the meta-atoms of the meta-atom library define the meta-atom design (Macinnis subwavelength structures 108, shown in at least Fig. 3, are equivalent to a meta-atom design, and in view of She, the prior art teaches the design of subwavelength structures stored in a library); the geometric shape comprises canonical shapes or freeform shapes (Macinnis subwavelength structures 108, shown in at least Fig. 3, are rectangular, par. [0035], therefore are canonical shapes); and the method further comprises optimizing the meta-atom design based on the function (Macinnis teaches computer software can be used to determine the dimensions and arrangements of the subwavelength structures 108 to achieve desired refractive outcomes, pars. [0062-64], equivalent to optimizing the design of the subwavelength structures to achieve the desired optical function).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 11, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the geometric shape comprises a canonical shape comprising isotropic nanostructures (Macinnis subwavelength structures 108, see Fig. 3, are rectangular, par. [0035], and therefore are canonical shapes and isotropic, where isotropic is understood by the Examiner to refer to uniform material properties in all dimensions of the nanostructures).
Regarding amended dependent claim 18, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 11, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the meta-atoms (Macinnis subwavelength structures 108 are equivalent to meta-atoms as discussed above) of the meta-atom library (Macinnis in view of She teaches the design of subwavelength structures stored in a library, as discussed above) cooperate to define the meta-atom design configured to induce a polarization-dependent focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens (Macinnis in view of Schonbrun teaches focusing of light received by implant 100 depending on polarization of the incoming light, for use in micro-optical systems, as discussed above).
Regarding amended independent claim 19, Macinnis discloses a method of manufacturing an ophthalmic lens (refer to at least Figs. 7 and 8 depicting flowcharts of a method for making an ophthalmic device, pars. [0084-95]), comprising:
forming a meta-atom library, comprising:
determining a function of a metasurface array for an ophthalmic lens (Macinnis teaches the specific arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is dependent upon the desired refractive outcome, par. [0062]), the function comprising at least one of a glare reduction of the ophthalmic lens by a reduction in halo, a reduction of a lens, a reduction of a lens aberration (subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 are customized to correct eye conditions, such as spherical and chromatic aberration, par. [0092]), or an expansion of an angle of a vertical or horizontal field of view;
determining a geometric shape and directional orientation of meta-atoms of the metasurface array based on the function (Macinnis teaches the subwavelength structures have dimensions that are less than the wavelengths of the radiation with which they are intended to interact, and the subwavelength structures are arranged in a pattern which alters an incoming wavefront in a nonrefractive, non-diffractive manner by virtue of the composition, shape, orientation, height and diameter of the structures, par. [0035], and Macinnis teaches the specific arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is dependent upon the desired refractive outcome, par. [0062], therefore Macinnis teaches and renders obvious forming the meta-atom library comprising meta-atoms having the geometric shape and directional orientation, because storing and retrieving the information on the arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is a necessary step in making and using the metalens 104 of implant 100, and Macinnis also teaches and renders obvious the forming a metasurface array by establishing metasurface building elements comprising the meta-atoms of the meta library in a matrix, where matrix is understood by the Examiner to refer to a pattern in which the subwavelength structures are arranged in order for the metalens 104 to function as intended).
determining a geometric shape and directional orientation of meta-atoms of the metasurface array based on the function (Macinnis teaches the specific arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is dependent upon the desired refractive outcome, par. [0062]), the meta-atoms configured to induce focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens (the height, width, tilt and separation of the subwavelength structures are parameters that determine the focus of the ophthalmic lens, par. [0064]); and
meta-atoms having the geometric shape and directional orientation (Macinnis teaches the subwavelength structures have dimensions that are less than the wavelengths of the radiation with which they are intended to interact, and the subwavelength structures are arranged in a pattern which alters an incoming wavefront in a nonrefractive, non-diffractive manner by virtue of the composition, shape, orientation, height and diameter of the structures, par. [0035], and Macinnis teaches the specific arrangement and pattern of the subwavelength structures 108 is dependent upon the desired refractive outcome, par. [0062], therefore Macinnis teaches meta-atoms having the geometric shape and directional orientation based on the function desired); and forming a metasurface array on a surface of the ophthalmic lens by establishing metasurface building elements comprising the meta-atoms in a matrix on the surface of the ophthalmic lens (Fig. 1, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 that interact with visible light and are arranged on substrate 106).
the matrix comprising a material platform configured to hold the metasurface building elements in a meta-atom design (Figs. 1 and 2, metalens 104 is comprised of subwavelength structures 108 arranged on substrate 106, par. [0047], therefore Macinnis discloses a material platform, substrate 106, for holding the metasurface building elements, i.e., subwavelength structures 108, and as shown in at least Fig. 3, nanofins 302 are an example of subwavelength structures that are disposed in an array 300, par. [0062], where a meta-design is equivalent to an array as best understood by the Examiner),
Macinnis does not explicitly disclose forming a metasurface array on an environment-facing surface of the ophthalmic lens, and Macinnis does not disclose meta-atoms configured to induce a polarization-dependent focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens, wherein the polarization-dependent focusing of light defines the ophthalmic lens as a multifocal lens with at least a first focal point and second focal point based on a polarization state of the received light, the meta-atoms configured to reduce an interference between the first focal point and the second focal point in response to an orthogonality of the polarization states, and Macinnis does not explicitly disclose forming a meta-atom library, and Macinnis does not disclose the material platform comprising at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN) (Macinnis teaches substrate 106 may be a transparent polymer or another light-transmissive material, and that the subwavelength structures 108 may be of dielectric material such as titanium dioxide, but Macinnis does not specify a substrate of titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride).
In the same field of invention, AlQattan discloses a holographic laser ablation method to produce optical nanostructures on contact lenses (see Fig. 1, page 5131, first column, last paragraph thereof). Synthetic black dye on the contact lens surface was selectively ablated to form a holographic nanograting structure (page 5132, first column, first paragraph). The nanostructures were fabricated on the contact lenses (see at least Figs. 1c and 1d thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of AlQattan to the disclosure of Macinnis and used a laser interference system to produce nanostructures directly on a variety of soft and hard materials to produce low-cost optical nanostructures rapidly by direct laser interference patterning (AlQattan, page 5131, first column). The prior art combination therefore teaches and renders obvious the limitation the metasurface array defining an environment-facing surface of the ophthalmic lens, as the method taught by AlQattan requires fabrication of the nanostructures directly on the environment-facing surface of a contact lens.
The Macinnis-AlQattan combination does not disclose meta-atoms configured to induce a polarization-dependent focusing of light received by the ophthalmic lens, wherein the polarization-dependent focusing of light defines the ophthalmic lens as a multifocal lens with at least a first focal point and second focal point based on a polarization state of the received light, the meta-atoms configured to reduce an interference between the first focal point and the second focal point in response to an orthogonality of the polarization states, and the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose forming a meta-atom library and the prior art combination does not disclose the material platform comprising at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN).
In a related field of invention, Schonbrun discloses polarization-dependent focusing of light with nanowire lenses (refer to Abstract and page 4302 column 1 and see at least Fig. 4 thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Schonbrun to the disclosure of Macinnis to configure subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 to focus light received by implant 100 depending on polarization of the incoming light, for use in micro-optical systems (refer to Schonbrun page 4303 column 1), and because Schonbrun teaches a two-level phase grating for one polarization and a second completely independent two-level phase grating for the other polarization (refer to page 4300, column 1, second paragraph), the prior art combination of Macinnis in view of Schonbrun teaches and renders obvious the equivalent of reduced interference between first and second focal points of the polarization states passing through the lens.
The Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun combination does not explicitly disclose forming a meta-atom library and the prior art combination does not disclose the material platform comprising at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN).
In the same field of invention, She discloses a method of generating a layout data file for metasurface devices (refer to at least the abstract, Figs. 6 and 7, and claim 1 thereof), including forming a library set of metasurface elements comprising meta-atoms having the desired geometric shape and directional orientations (refer to at least Fig. 3 thereof depicting an exemplary design of a metasurface lens, with the design of metasurface lens elements stored in library references, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of She to the disclosure of Macinnis and stored the design information for subwavelength structures 108, such as shape and orientation among other relevant dimensions and parameters, in a data format such as that of She, as the method disclosed therein is a highly efficient method of representing metasurface element data (She, par. [0023]).
The Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She combination does not disclose the material platform comprising at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN).
In the same field of invention, Zhan discloses metasurfaces of silicon nitride formed on a substrate (refer to at least title and abstract thereof), and Zhan discloses functioning diffractive lenses were successfully formed from silicon nitride (par. [0065] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Zhan to the disclosure of Macinnis and formed subwavelength structures of silicon nitride on a substrate of silicon nitride, because Macinnis teaches the substrate may be another light-transmissive material other than a polymer, and Zhan teaches silicon nitride has low visible absorption (par. [0099] thereof) and silicon nitride is desirable as this material does not suffer from absorption losses due to a wide band gap and also exhibits similar performance to other material platforms (par. [0110] thereof).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan discloses the method of claim 19, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the matrix is held with a titanium dioxide material platform (Macinnis discloses metalens 104 has subwavelength structures 108 of TiO2, pars. [0038-40], [0047]).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan discloses the method of claim 20, and Macinnis further discloses the method of claim 20 further comprising associating the metasurface array with a lens body (Macinnis metalens 104 has subwavelength structures 108 arranged on polymer substrate 106 of hydrophobic acrylic polymer body 102, par. [0047]).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan discloses the method of claim 21, and Macinnis further discloses wherein: the lens body comprises a hybrid plano-convex refractive lens body having a convex portion and a planar portion (Macinnis Fig. 1, IOL implant 100 includes metalens 104 that is planar, pars. [0047-48], and Macinnis teaches IOL implant 100 may be formed with posterior convexity, par. [0059], therefore Macinnis teaches an embodiment of implant 100 that is plano-convex); and the method further comprises associating the titanium dioxide material platform having the meta-atoms with planar portion (Macinnis subwavelength structures 108 are TiO2, par. [0047]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Xie et al. US PGPub 2019/0187615 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/22/2025, hereinafter, “Xie”).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 12, and Macinnis discloses the method of claim 12 further comprising: validating the optimized meta-atom design using a simulation tool and determining a validation metric of the optimized meta-atom design relative to the function of the metasurface array (Macinnis, par. [0064], computer software may be used to determine dimensions and arrangements of subwavelength structures 108 to achieve desired refractive outcomes, pars. [0062-64]).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose comparing the validation metric to a threshold value nor does the prior art combination explicitly disclose repeating the optimizing of the meta-atom design where the validation metric is less than the threshold value.
In a related field of endeavor, Xie discloses a system 100, shown in at least Fig. 1a thereof, comprising an acoustic metamaterial-based hologram 104 (par. [0041]), where the design of the metamaterial was generated by an iterative generation and optimization algorithm and checked with numerical simulations to produce tailored metamaterial unit cells (par. [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Xie to the disclosure of Macinnis and applied an iterative generation and optimization algorithm such as that of Xie to design metamaterial unit cells for the subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 as described by Macinnis to achieve excellent agreement between desired refractive outcomes and experimental test results (Xie, par. [0044]).
Examiner also notes that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the process of determining a validation metric to a threshold value and subsequently adjusting the meta-atom design, and repeating the process, until the validation metric and the threshold value were within acceptable limits, as the calibration procedure is obvious to try for optimizing meta-atom designs (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In this case, Macinnis teaches the design of an ophthalmic lens such as implant 100 using computer software (refer to Macinnis par. [0064]), therefore (1) implicitly disclosing the problem of identifying the best subwavelength structure or nanostructure assembly for the function of the ophthalmic lens disclosed, (2) disclosing a list of options for the shape of subwavelength structures described by Macinnis, and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, as Macinnis discloses a variety of substitutions and alterations are possible without departing from the scope of the ophthalmic lens disclosed therein (refer to at least par. [0064] of Macinnis), and (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose to validate optimized meta-atom designs using a simulation tool and determine a validation metric of the optimized meta-atom design relative to the function of the metasurface array; and then compare the validation metric to a threshold value; and then to repeat the process of optimizing of the meta-atom design where the validation metric is less than the threshold value because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Devlin.
Regarding dependent claim 15, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 11, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the geometric shape comprises a canonical shape (Macinnis subwavelength structures 108, see Fig. 3, are rectangular, par. [0035], and therefore are canonical shapes).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the meta-atoms comprising anisotropic nanostructures.
In the same field of invention, Devlin teaches an optical component with a waveplate coated in nanostructures (refer to par. [0076] and see Figs. 2a and 2b thereof), where the nanostructures are anisotropic (pars. [0068], [0074], [0076], [0083-84], [0090]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Devlin to the disclosure of Macinnis to fabricate arbitrary nanostructures that are anisotropic, for use in metaoptical devices that are useful in the visible spectrum (Devlin, par. [0068]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of A. Passaseo, M. Esposito, M. Cuscunà, V. Tasco, Advanced Optical Materials 2017, 5, 601079. https://doi.org/10.1002/adom.201601079 (of record, see Office action dated 01/22/2025, hereinafter, “Passaseo”).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 11, and Macinnis further discloses wherein the geometric shape comprises a shape having at least a 2-fold symmetry (Macinnis Fig. 3, subwavelength structures 108 are rectangular, par. [0035], and therefore have 2-fold symmetry).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the geometric shape for the meta-atoms is a freeform shape having at least 2-fold symmetry.
In the same field of endeavor, Passaseo teaches helix-shaped nanostructures and their optical properties as a function of composition and arrangement (see Fig. 4 thereof, and refer to at least page 3, column 2, first full paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Passaseo to the disclosure of Macinnis and used helix-shaped nanostructural elements for subwavelength structures 108, to provide metalens 104 with circular polarization capability (refer to Passaseo, page 20, column 2, second full paragraph under 5.1. Miniature Photonics Components).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macinnis in view of AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Zhan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rogers US Patent 3,617,114 A (of record, see Office action dated 10/07/2024, hereinafter, “Rogers”).
Regarding dependent claim 17, the Macinnis-AlQattan-Schonbrun-She-Zhan combination discloses the method of claim 11, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the function comprises a reduced glare/halo characteristic of the ophthalmic lens.
In a related field of invention, Rogers teaches spectacles with polarizing material to reduce glare (col. 1 lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Rogers to the disclosure of Macinnis and considered the glare-reducing properties of subwavelength structures 108 of metalens 104 that focuses light based on polarization state of the illumination, so as to reduce brightness and glare for an ophthalmic lens wearer (Rogers, col. 2, lines 25-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the obviousness rejections based on Macinnis and AlQattan, Applicant has argued that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Macinnis fails to teach or suggest that the alleged metasurface array 104 includes a material platform for holding the alleged metasurface building elements 108 in a meta-design or that the material platform includes titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride, and that Macinnis's only teachings related to any of the claimed material platform materials are that the subwavelength structures 108 themselves, but not a material for holding the subwavelength structures 108, can be a dielectric material selected from titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride. Applicant further argues that AlQattan fails to cure the deficiencies of Macinnis and none of the cited references teach or suggests the limitations of amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully agrees, and notes that after further search and consideration, Zhan teaches the inclusion of silicon nitride as metasurfaces. Together these references would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art the use of silicon nitride as the substrate 106, because Macinnis teaches that other transparent materials besides transparent polymers are acceptable and feasible for use in the device 100 disclosed therein.
With regard to the obviousness rejections based on Macinnis, AlQattan, and Devlin, Applicant has argued that claim 4 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and is allowable at least insofar as claim 4 depends from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 1 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
With regard to the obviousness rejections based on Macinnis, AlQattan, and Schonbrun, Applicant has argued claims 5 and 7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are allowable at least insofar as claims 5 and 7 depend from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 1 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
With regard to the obviousness rejection based on Macinnis, AlQattan, Schonbrun, and Rogers, Applicant has argued that Claim 6 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and is allowable at least insofar as claim 6 depends from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 1 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
With regard to the obviousness rejection based on Macinnis, AlQattan, Schonbrun, and She, Applicant has argued that amended independent claim 11 recites, inter alia, "forming the metasurface array comprising an arrangement of the meta-atoms formed with a material platform for holding the meta- atoms in a meta-atom design, the material platform comprising at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or gallium nitride (GaN)”, and argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least these limitations of amended claim 11.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Macinnis fails to teach or suggest that the alleged metasurface array 108 includes a material platform for holding the alleged meta-atoms 108 in a meta-atom design or that the material platform includes titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride, and that Macinnis's only teachings related to any of the claimed material platform materials are that the subwavelength structures 108 themselves, not a material for holding the subwavelength structures 108, can be a dielectric material selected from titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or gallium nitride, and Applicant argues AlQattan, Schonbrun, and She fail to cure these deficiencies of Macinnis in this regard.
Examiner respectfully agrees, and notes that after further search and consideration, Zhan teaches the inclusion of silicon nitride as metasurfaces. Together these references would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art the use of silicon nitride as the substrate 106, because Macinnis teaches that other transparent materials besides transparent polymers are acceptable and feasible for use in the device 100 disclosed therein.
Likewise with regard to the rejection of independent claim 19, Applicant has argued that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least these limitations of amended claim 19. As with the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, Examiner respectfully agrees, and notes that after further search and consideration, Zhan teaches the inclusion of silicon nitride as metasurfaces. Together these references would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art the use of silicon nitride as the substrate 106, because Macinnis teaches that other transparent materials besides transparent polymers are acceptable and feasible for use in the device 100 disclosed therein.
With regard to the obviousness rejection based on Macinnis, AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Xie, Applicant has argued that claim 13 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 11 and is allowable at least insofar as claim 13 depends from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 11 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
With regard to the obviousness rejection based on Macinnis, AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Devlin, Applicant has argued that claim 15 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 11 and is allowable at least insofar as claim 15 depends from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 11 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
With regard to the obviousness rejection based on Macinnis, AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Passaseo, Applicant has argued that claim 16 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 11 and is allowable at least insofar as claim 16 depends from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 11 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
With regard to the obviousness rejection based on Macinnis, AlQattan, Schonbrun, She, and Rogers, Applicant has argued that claim 17 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 11 and is allowable at least insofar as claim 17 depends from a patentably distinct independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as independent claim 11 is not allowable with respect to the prior art cited.
No other arguments were presented after page 20 of Remarks. As such, the prior art teaches the instant invention as currently claimed.
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 Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872