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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 11-15, 17 and 20-30 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 11, 20, 24-26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses a contact lens for a myopic eye (see Fig 3), the contact lens characterized by a front surface, a back surface, an optical centre, an optical zone around the optical centre (see Fig 3; Para [0029]; a lens has an outer and an inner surface; an optical center at the optical axis and an optical zone 114 as seen in Fig 3), a blending zone (see Fig 3; Para [0029]; a blending zone 118), a non-optical peripheral carrier zone (see Fig 3; Para [0029]; a peripheral zone 116); the optical zone including at least a substantial region configured with substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution (see Fig 3; Para [0025]; central zone 114 is an asphero-toric zone containing astigmatic/cylindrical power distribution), wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is configured substantially about the optical centre (see Fig 3; Para [0025]; central zone 114 is an asphero-toric zone containing astigmatic/cylindrical power distribution in a central region 114 around the optical center), provides at least in part a meridional correction for the myopic eye, and at least in part introduces meridional astigmatism producing a stop signal for the myopic eye (see Fig 3; Para [0025]; lens contains spherical correction for myopic eye and cylindrical correction for astigmatism at an optical center which meets a defocusing blending zone which examiner interprets as producing a stop signal); and wherein the non-optical peripheral carrier zone is configured with a thickness profile that is substantially rotationally symmetric about the optical centre (see Fig 3; Para [0034]; non optical peripheral zone 116 is rotationally symmetric about the center of the lens).
Ye does not disclose wherein the contact lens is a contact lens with a prescription for a myopic eye with astigmatism between 0 and 1 cylindrical dioptric power; and wherein the contact lens is configured to rotate on the myopic eye by at least 180 degrees. Ye and Shimojo both disclose contact lenses with different optical zones.
Shimojo discloses a contact lens (see Fig 1) wherein the contact lens is a contact lens with a prescription for a myopic eye with astigmatism between 0 and 1 cylindrical dioptric power (see Figs 1 and 13; Para [0204-0206]; cylindrical power of contact lens in an optical zone between zones F2’ and F2 are between 0 and 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye with wherein the contact lens is a contact lens with a prescription for a myopic eye with astigmatism between 0 and 1 cylindrical dioptric power of Shimojo for the purpose of improving a patient’s view through gradual change of set powers (Para [0026-0027]).
Ye in view of Shimojo does not disclose wherein the contact lens is configured to rotate on the myopic eye by at least 180 degrees. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Roffman discloses a contact lens (see Fig 2) wherein the contact lens is configured to rotate on the myopic eye by at least 180 degrees (see Fig 2; Para [0027-0029]; an example lens is tested at 180 deg from intended orientation and rotated to a set point via coaxial stabilization zones)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo with wherein the contact lens is configured to rotate on the myopic eye by at least 180 degrees of Roffman for the purpose of maintaining an orientation of a lens and allowing for proper light diffraction (Para [0002])
Regarding claim 3, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein the area of the substantial region configured with the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution comprises at least 60% of the optical zone and the remainder of the optical zone is configured with the spherical correction for the myopic eye (see Fig 3; Para [0023-0026]; center zone 114 has toric/cylindrical power distribution along all of the zone as well as spherical/myopic correction).
Regarding claim 11, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone has effective astigmatism or toricity of at least +1.25 DC (see Fig 3; Para [0023-0026]; center zone 114 has toric/cylindrical power distribution that capable of +1.25 for a typical eye).
Regarding claim 20, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein the introduced meridional astigmatism in conjunction with the substantially free rotation offers a temporally and spatially varying optical stop signal for the wearer's eye to provide a directional signal to substantially control eye growth of the myopic eye; such that the efficacy of the directional signal remains substantially consistent over time, wherein the substantially consistent efficacy over time is at least 18 months (see Fig 3; Para [0025]; lens contains spherical correction for myopic eye and cylindrical correction for astigmatism together with a peripheral zone that may be aspheric and may be symmetrical, as in Fig 3, thus producing a stop signal that is constant).
Regarding claim 24, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein the thickness profile of the substantially rotationally symmetric region of the non-optical peripheral carrier zone in any meridian is within 6% difference of the average thickness profile of the non-optical peripheral carrier zone measured about the optical centre of the contact lens (see Fig 3; Para [0034-0035]; thickness profile for peripheral carrier is around the same thickness as center as seen in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 25, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein a thickest point within the non-optical peripheral carrier zone across any of the meridians is within a maximum variation of 30 µm of the thickest peripheral point of any other meridian (see Fig 6; Para [0034-0035] thickest point of peripheral region is at interface with blending region).
Regarding claim 26, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein a proportion of at least 50% of a conoid of Sturm formed due to the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution falls in front of the retina providing the stop signal to decelerate the rate of myopia progression; wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is the distance between the sagittal and tangential image planes (see Fig 3; Para [0025]; lens contains spherical correction for myopic eye and cylindrical correction for astigmatism thus producing a Strum interval with stop signal that is in front of retina).
Regarding claim 29, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein the contact lens is capable of modifying the incoming light and utilizes the directional cues offered by the introduced meridional astigmatism to decelerate the rate of myopia progression (see Fig 3; Para [0025]; lens contains spherical correction for myopic eye and cylindrical correction for astigmatism allowing for decelerated rate of myopia).
Regarding claim 30, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye further discloses wherein the contact lens is capable of providing the wearer with an adequate visual performance that is comparable to the performance obtained with a commercial single vision contact lens (see Fig 3; Para [0006-0012]; contact lens capable of providing correction to a user that is improved in performance to single vision).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benoit (US 2018/0081196, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function described by the expression Sphere + (Cylinder / 2)* (Azimuthal component), wherein the Sphere refers to the distance spherical prescription power to correct the myopic eye, the Cylinder refers to the magnitude of induced astigmatism or toricity, wherein the Azimuthal component of the power distribution function is described as Ca*cos(mθ) wherein Ca is an azimuthal coefficient, m is an integer between 2 and 6, and Theta (θ) is the azimuthal angle of a given point of the optical zone. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Benoit are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Benoit discloses a contact lens (see Fig 2) wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function described by the expression Sphere + (Cylinder / 2)* (Azimuthal component), wherein the Sphere refers to the distance spherical prescription power to correct the myopic eye, the Cylinder refers to the magnitude of induced astigmatism or toricity, wherein the Azimuthal component of the power distribution function is described as Ca*cos(mθ) wherein Ca is an azimuthal coefficient, m is an integer between 2 and 6, and Theta (θ) is the azimuthal angle of a given point of the optical zone (see Fig 2; Para [0075]; Benoit discloses the mean refractive power function and an angle, β, that may be used to describe a Power distribution at a certain angle using geometrical functions)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function described by the expression Sphere + (Cylinder / 2)* (Azimuthal component), wherein the Sphere refers to the distance spherical prescription power to correct the myopic eye, the Cylinder refers to the magnitude of induced astigmatism or toricity, wherein the Azimuthal component of the power distribution function is described as Ca*cos(mθ) wherein Ca is an azimuthal coefficient, m is an integer between 2 and 6, and Theta (θ) is the azimuthal angle of a given point of the optical zone of Benoit for the purpose of improving the comfort of the wearer (Para [0012])
Regarding claim 13, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function described by the expression Sphere + (Cylinder/2)*(Radial component)*(Azimuthal component), wherein the Sphere refers to the distance spherical prescription power to correct the myopic eye, the Cylinder refers to the magnitude of induced astigmatism or toricity, the Radial component of the power distribution function is described as Cr*p, wherein Cr is the coefficient of the expansion and Rho (p) is the normalised radial co-ordinate (p0 / pmax); and wherein the Azimuthal component of the power distribution function is described as Ca*cos (mθ) where m can be any integer between 2 and 6, and Theta (θ) is the azimuthal angle, wherein Rho (p0) is the radial coordinate at a given point, wherein pmax is the maximum radial co-ordinate or semi-diameter of the optical zone. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Benoit are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Benoit discloses a contact lens (see Fig 2) wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function described by the expression Sphere + (Cylinder/2)*(Radial component)*(Azimuthal component), wherein the Sphere refers to the distance spherical prescription power to correct the myopic eye, the Cylinder refers to the magnitude of induced astigmatism or toricity, the Radial component of the power distribution function is described as Cr*p, wherein Cr is the coefficient of the expansion and Rho (p) is the normalised radial co-ordinate (p0 / pmax); and wherein the Azimuthal component of the power distribution function is described as Ca*cos (mθ) where m can be any integer between 2 and 6, and Theta (θ) is the azimuthal angle, wherein Rho (p0) is the radial coordinate at a given point, wherein pmax is the maximum radial co-ordinate or semi-diameter of the optical zone (see Fig 2; Para [0075]; Benoit discloses the mean refractive power function, an angle, β, and a radius q that may be used to describe a Power distribution at a certain angle and radial point using geometrical functions)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function described by the expression Sphere + (Cylinder/2)*(Radial component)*(Azimuthal component), wherein the Sphere refers to the distance spherical prescription power to correct the myopic eye, the Cylinder refers to the magnitude of induced astigmatism or toricity, the Radial component of the power distribution function is described as Cr*p, wherein Cr is the coefficient of the expansion and Rho (p) is the normalised radial co-ordinate (p0 / pmax); and wherein the Azimuthal component of the power distribution function is described as Ca*cos (mθ) where m can be any integer between 2 and 6, and Theta (θ) is the azimuthal angle, wherein Rho (p0) is the radial coordinate at a given point, wherein pmax is the maximum radial co-ordinate or semi-diameter of the optical zone of Benoit for the purpose of improving the comfort of the wearer (Para [0012])
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bakaraju (US 2014/0104653, of record).
Regarding claim 14, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function that is described at least in part using at least one or more of the terms of the Bessel circular functions of the first kind with a generic expression of (n, m); wherein the at least one or more of the terms of the Bessel Circular function are obtained when n takes values of 1,2,3 and m takes values of +2. Ye and Bakaraju are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Bakaraju discloses a contact lens (see Fig 2A) wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function that is described at least in part using at least one or more of the terms of the Bessel circular functions of the first kind with a generic expression of (n, m); wherein the at least one or more of the terms of the Bessel Circular function are obtained when n takes values of 1,2,3 and m takes values of +2 (see Fig 2A; Para [0174]; Bessel functions may be used to describe a lens)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is expressed using a power distribution function that is described at least in part using at least one or more of the terms of the Bessel circular functions of the first kind with a generic expression of (n, m); wherein the at least one or more of the terms of the Bessel Circular function are obtained when n takes values of 1,2,3 and m takes values of +2 of Bakaraju for the purpose of correcting refractive error without compensating quality of vision (Para [0018])
Regarding claim 15, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is further expressed at least in part using a power distribution function described by Jacobi polynomials, Taylor polynomials, Fourier series, or combinations thereof. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Bakaraju are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Bakaraju discloses a contact lens (see Fig 2A) wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is further expressed at least in part using a power distribution function described by Jacobi polynomials, Taylor polynomials, Fourier series, or combinations thereof (see Fig 2A; Para [0174]; Fourier Expansions, Taylor expansion may be used)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution substantially across the optical zone is further expressed at least in part using a power distribution function described by Jacobi polynomials, Taylor polynomials, Fourier series, or combinations thereof of Bakaraju for the purpose of correcting refractive error without compensating quality of vision (Para [0018])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin (US 2017/0123231, of record).
Regarding claim 17, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1 (see Fig 3). Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the thickness profile allows substantially free rotation of the contact lens on the myopic eye; wherein the substantially free rotation of the contact lens is gauged as a rotation of the contact lens by 180 degrees at least thrice per 8 hours of lens wear, or at least 15 degrees within 1 hour of lens wear. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Franklin are related because both disclose contact lenses.
Franklin discloses a contact lens (see Fig 3) wherein the thickness profile allows substantially free rotation of the contact lens on the myopic eye; wherein the substantially free rotation of the contact lens is gauged as a rotation of the contact lens by 180 degrees at least thrice per 8 hours of lens wear, or at least 15 degrees within 1 hour of lens wear (see Fig 4; Para [0037]; contact lens with myopic correction is allowed to rotate at least 15 deg within 1 hour as seen in Fig 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the thickness profile allows substantially free rotation of the contact lens on the myopic eye; wherein the substantially free rotation of the contact lens is gauged as a rotation of the contact lens by 180 degrees at least thrice per 8 hours of lens wear, or at least 15 degrees within 1 hour of lens wear of Franklin for the purpose of providing comfort to a user while maintaining orientation (Para [0014]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 2017/0276962, of record).
Regarding claim 21, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the azimuthal power distribution function may take a form of cos2 (mθ), wherein m can be an integer between 2 and 6. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Zhao are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Zhao discloses an optical lens (see Fig 1A) wherein the azimuthal power distribution function may take a form of cos2 (mθ), wherein m can be an integer between 2 and 6 (see Fig 1A; Para [0092-0094]; cos2 (theta) may be used to describe the lens and thus its power as well)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the azimuthal power distribution function may take a form of cos2 (mθ), wherein m can be an integer between 2 and 6 of Zhao for the purpose of improving tolerance to misalignment (Para [0006])
Claim 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindacher (US 7,101,041, of record)
Regarding claim 22, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is combined with a primary spherical aberration of at least +1 D defined over the entire optical zone. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Lindacher are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Lindacher discloses an optical lens (see Abstract) wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is combined with a primary spherical aberration of at least +1 D defined over the entire optical zone (Para [0004-0007]; provides a negative aberration of between 1D to 5D)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is combined with a primary spherical aberration of at least +1 D defined over the entire optical zone of Lindacher for the purpose of correcting spherical aberration without the need to excess surgery (Para [0003])
Regarding claim 23, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 1. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is combined with a primary spherical aberration of at least -1 D defined over the entire optical zone. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Lindacher are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Lindacher discloses an optical lens (see Abstract) wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is combined with a primary spherical aberration of at least -1 D defined over the entire optical zone (Para [0004-0007]; provides a negative aberration of between 1D to 5D)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the substantially toric or astigmatic power distribution is combined with a primary spherical aberration of at least -1 D defined over the entire optical zone of Lindacher for the purpose of correcting spherical aberration without the need to excess surgery (Para [0003])
Claim 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0040458, of record) in view of Shimojo (US 2021/0318556, of record) and Roffman (US 2002/0024631) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Portney (US 2012/0147321, of record)
Regarding claim 27, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 26. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is configured to be between about +0.5D to +3 D. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Portney are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Portney discloses an optical lens (see Fig 2) wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is configured to be between about +0.5D to +3 D (see Fig 2; Para [0071-0072]; depth as seen in Fig may be in range of typical eye)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is configured to be between about +0.5D to +3 D of Lindacher for the purpose of correcting myopia and astigmatism in an improved fashion (Para [0004])
Regarding claim 28, Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman discloses the contact lens of claim 26. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman does not disclose wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is configured to be between about 0.6 mm to 0 mm. Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman and Portney are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Portney discloses an optical lens (see Fig 2) wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is configured to be between about 0.6 mm to 0 mm (see Fig 2; Para [0071-0072]; depth as seen in Fig may be in range of typical eye)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ye in view of Shimojo and Roffman with wherein the depth of the conoid of Sturm is configured to be between about 0.6 mm to 0 mm of Lindacher for the purpose of correcting myopia and astigmatism in an improved fashion (Para [0004])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872