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
Claims 1, 6, 15, 16 and 45 are amended, claims 18-22 and 60 are cancelled and claim 61 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection of claim 45 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 45 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of claim 32 under Baldy 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 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues on page 11 that Barrau does not disclose the amended claim 1 limitation, “the transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter further comprises a transmission peak having a maximum transmittance, wherein: the maximum transmittance of the transmittance peak is positioned at a second wavelength from 420 nm to 440 nm; and the maximum transmittance of the transmittance peak is greater than or equal to about 70%”, because Barrau teaches a maximum transmittance of 410 nm.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) to show that the maximum transmittance of 410 nm is close to the claimed range of 420 nm to 440 nm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Second Applicant argues on page 12 that Ishak does not disclose the amended claim 1 limitation, “wherein: the minimum transmittance of the transmittance valley is positioned at a first wavelength from about 450 nm +1% to about 475 nm +1%”, because Ishak teaches a minimum transmittance at 437 nm.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) to show that the minimum transmittance at 437 nm is close to the claimed range of 450 nm +1% to about 475 nm +1% and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Third Applicant argues on page 12 that Fukagawa does not disclose the amended claim 1 limitation, “wherein: the minimum transmittance of the transmittance valley is positioned at a first wavelength from about 450 nm +1%to about 475 nm +1%”, because Fukagawa teaches a minimum transmittance at 437 nm.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) to show that the minimum transmittance at 488 nm is close to the claimed range of 450 nm +1% to about 475 nm +1% and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Fourth Applicant argues on page 16 that McCabe does not disclose the limitation of claim 32, “the optical filter is configured to switch between a light state and a dark state”, because the filter described is include in various embodiments of lenses for a low light and bright light environment as two separate filters.
Examiner disagrees and has cited McCabe to disclose, “the optical filter (optical filter paragraph [0188]) is configured to switch between a light state (shooting in low light represented by the solid line paragraph [0188] in fig. 8B as described where the light state is in the low light environment paragraph [0071] of the current application) and a dark state (shooting in bright light is represented by the dashed line paragraph [0189] in fig. 8B as described where the dark state is in the bright light environment paragraph [0071] of the current application)”. McCabe discloses in paragraph [0188] that figure 8B can represent the transmittance profile of one filter in low light and in paragraph [0189] that the transmittance profile is also used in bright light. When the filter is in low light it will have the transmittance profile of the solid line and when used in a bright light it will have the dashed line transmittance profile.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-17 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrau et al. (US 20220113559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barrau discloses in at least figure 3, a lens of an eyewear (polycarbonate
lenses paragraph [0133]) comprising an optical filter (tinted resin paragraph [0137]),
wherein a transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (example 2 Grey 2 spectral
transmittance fig. 3) comprises a transmission valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 3) having a minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 3) with a spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 3), wherein:
the minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 3) is positioned at a first wavelength below 475 nm + 1% (V1 is at 435 nm fig. 3 and the claimed range is 445.5 nm to 479.75 nm);
the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 3), equal to the full width (FW = 440 nm -425
nm= 15 nm as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 3) at the minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 3) plus 30%, is less than or equal to about 30 nm (SB = 15 nm as a result of the values above); and
wherein the transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (example 2 Grey 2 spectral
transmittance fig. 3) further comprises a transmission peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 3) having a maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 3), wherein:
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 3) is positioned at a second wavelength below 440 nm (Tmax at 410 nm fig. 3); and
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 3) is greater than or equal to about 70% (T max = 83% fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barrau does not explicitly disclose, the minimum transmittance of the transmittance valley is positioned at a first wavelength from 450 nm ±1% to 475 nm ±1% ;
the maximum transmittance of the transmittance peak is positioned at a second wavelength from 420 nm to 440 nm.
However, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of the transmittance valley V1 at 435 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 450 nm ±1% to 475 nm ±1% that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the transmittance valley V1 such that 450 nm ±1% to 475 nm ±1% since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Additionally In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of maximum transmittance Tmax at 410 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 420 nm to 440 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the maximum transmittance such that Tmax at 420 nm to 440 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein
the minimum transmittance (T min as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown
below in fig. 3) is from about 15% to about 40% (V1 is at 25% as shown below in fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
748
1076
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein
the first wavelength is from about 455 nm to about 465 nm (V1 is at 435 nm fig. 3, the instant
application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of
a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which
is a range of 432.25 nm to 488.25 nm).
PNG
media_image3.png
573
823
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses, wherein the first wavelength is (V1 is at 435 nm fig. 3, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 437 nm to 483 nm).
PNG
media_image4.png
755
1085
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Barrau does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first wavelength is about 460 nm.
However, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron,
balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum,
balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close
that prim a facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See
M PEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 435 nm which is so close to the claimed range
of 437 nm that prim a facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the wavelength such that it is in the range 437 nm to 483 nm since it has been held that a prim a facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,783,227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein
the first wavelength is from about 450 nm to about 470 nm (V1 is at 435 nm fig. 3, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of
a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which
is a range of 427.5 nm to 493.5 nm).
PNG
media_image5.png
726
1044
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein
the transmittance spectral profile (example 2 Grey 2 spectral transmittance fig. 3) further comprises
another transmittance valley (V2 as shown below in fig. 3), the other transmittance valley (V2 as shown below in fig. 3) having a minimum transmittance positioned (Tmin2 as shown below in fig. 3) at a third wavelength (V2 is one of 4 transmission valleys as shown below in fig. 3) from about 570 nm to about 590 nm (V2 is at 550 fig. 3, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1 %, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 541.5 nm to 619.5 nm),
wherein the minimum transmittance (T min2 as shown below in fig. 3) the other transmittance
valley (V2 as shown below in fig. 3) is from about 70% to about 85% (T min2 = 75% fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an E313 yellowness index (the yellowness index Yi is calculated based on the standard ASTM E313
paragraph [0147])of the lens is from about 15 to about 35 (Yi= 22 table [0146]).
Regarding claim 11, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein
the optical filter further comprises an anti-reflection layer (AR coating on both sides paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 13, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1. and further discloses, wherein
an average absorptance of the optical filter in a spectral range of about 380 nm to about 500 nm is from
about 30% to about 50% (the average absorption= 39.375 as a result of average transmission values
calculated below from fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
189
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein the second wavelength is below 430 nm (T max of 410 nm fig. 3).
Barrau does not specially disclose, the second wavelength is from 420 nm to 430 nm.
However, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of maximum transmittance Tmax at 410 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 420 nm to 430 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the maximum transmittance such that Tmax at 420 nm to 430 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
PNG
media_image7.png
618
888
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses,
wherein the maximum transmittance (T max as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance peak (transmission peak 2160 fig. 21) is greater than or equal to about 75% (T max = 83% fig. 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
679
977
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Barrau discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and further discloses,
wherein an average transmittance of the transmittance spectral profile in a spectral range of about 480
nm to about 560 nm (the average transmission= 77.5 as a result of average transmission values
calculated below from fig. 3).
PNG
media_image9.png
154
569
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Barrau does not explicitly disclose, an average transmittance of the transmittance spectral
profile in a spectral range of about 480 nm to about 560 nm is greater than or equal to about 80%.
However, the average transmittance corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable
which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the average transmittance directly impacts the
e.g. the transmittance of the optical filter. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or
workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average transmittance for the purpose of e.g.
optimizing the transmittance of the filter.
Regarding claim 61, Barrau discloses in at least figure 3, a lens of an eyewear (polycarbonate
lenses paragraph [0133]) comprising an optical filter (tinted resin paragraph [0137]),
wherein a transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (example 2 Grey 2 spectral
transmittance fig. 3) comprises a transmission valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 3) having a minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 3) with a spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 3), wherein:
the minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 3) is positioned at a first wavelength from about 450 nm to about 475 nm (V1
is at 435 nm fig. 3, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and
"substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%,
±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 427.5 nm to 493.5 nm);
the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 3), equal to the full width (FW = 440 nm -425
nm= 15 nm as shown below in fig. 3) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 3) at the minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 3) plus 30%, is less than or equal to about 30 nm (SB = 15 nm as a result of the values above); and
wherein the transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (example 2 Grey 2 spectral transmittance fig. 3) further comprises a second transmittance valley (V2 as shown below in fig. 3) having a minimum transmittance (Tmin2 as shown below in fig. 3) positioned at a second wavelength from 570 nm +1% to 590 nm +1% (V2 is at 550 fig. 3 and the claimed range is 564.3 nm to 595.9).
PNG
media_image10.png
430
619
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Barrau does not explicitly disclose, a second transmittance valley having a minimum transmittance positioned at a second wavelength from 570 nm +1% to 590 nm +1%.
However It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 550 nm which is so close to the claimed range of from 570 nm +1% to 590 nm +1% that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the second wavelength such that it is from 570 nm +1% to 590 nm +1% since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishak et al. (US 20120075577 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishak discloses in at least figure 35, a lens of an eyewear (the dye or dyes
may be imbibed into the lens paragraph [0158]) comprising an optical filter (perylene filter paragraph
[0156]),
wherein a transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (transmission spectrum fig. 35)
comprises a transmission valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 35) having a minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 35) with a spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 35),
wherein the minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 35) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 35) is positioned at a first wavelength from below 475 nm ± 1% (Tmin is at 437 nm fig. 35 and the claimed range is 445.5 nm to 479.75 nm); and
the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 21), equal to the full width (FW = 440 nm -
425 nm= 15 nm as shown below in fig. 35) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 35) at
the minimum transmittance (T min as shown below in fig. 35) plus 30% is less than or equal to about 30
nm (SB = 15 nm as a result of the values above); and
wherein the transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (perylene filter paragraph [0156]) further comprises a transmission peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 35) having a maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 35), wherein:
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 35) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 35) is positioned at a second wavelength below 440 nm (P1 is at 415nm as shown below in fig. 35); and
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 35) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 35) is greater than or equal to about 70% (Tmax is at 70%).
PNG
media_image11.png
726
1024
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ishak does not explicitly disclose, wherein the minimum transmittance of the transmittance valley is positioned at a first wavelength from 450 nm ± 1% to 475 nm ± 1% ,
the maximum transmittance of the transmittance peak is positioned at a second wavelength from 420 nm to 440 nm.
However, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of maximum transmittance Tmin at 437 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 450 nm ± 1% to 475 nm ± 1% that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the minimum transmittance such that Tmin at 450 nm ± 1% to 475 nm ± 1% since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Additionally In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of maximum transmittance Tmax at 415 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 420 nm to 440 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the maximum transmittance such that Tmax at 420 nm to 440 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Ishak discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein a
photopic transmission of the optical filter is about 82% to about 95% (the photopic transmission is
97.5% paragraph [0166], the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and
"substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%,
±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 77.9% to 99.75%).
Regarding claim 10, Ishak discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein a scotopic transmission of the optical filter is from about 77% to about 95%(the photopic transmission is 93.2%).
Regarding claim 12, Ishak discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein
the optical filter comprises one or more organic dyes (the filter may include and organic dye paragraph
[0092]).
Regarding claim 59, Ishak discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, An
eyewear (any of the above-disclosed ophthalmic system may be incorporated into an article of eyewear paragraph [0183]) comprising the lens of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above).
Claims 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukagawa (JP 2012063715 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukagawa discloses in at least figure 4, a lens of an eyewear (the filter may
be inserted into a lens paragraph [0042] of translation for light shielding eyeglasses paragraph [0024] of
translation) comprising an optical filter (the volume phase hologram may be used as an optical filter
paragraph [0042] of translation),
wherein a transmittance spectral profile (transmittance spectrum fig. 4) of the optical filter (the
volume phase hologram may be used as an optical filter paragraph [0042] of translation comprises a
transmission valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 4) having a minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 4) with a spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 4),
wherein the minimum transmittance (Tmin as shown below in fig. 4) of the transmittance valley
(V1 as shown below in fig. 4) is positioned at a first wavelength above 450 nm ± 1% (Tmin = 488 nm paragraph [0041] of translation and the claimed range is 445.5 nm to 479.75 nm); and
the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 4), equal to the full width (FW = 495 - 475 =
20 nm) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 4) at the minimum transmittance (T min as
shown below in fig. 4) plus 30% is less than or equal to about 30 nm (SB= 20 nm as a result of the values above); and
wherein the transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (the filter may
be inserted into a lens paragraph [0042] of translation for light shielding eyeglasses paragraph [0024] of translation) further comprises a transmission peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 4) having a maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 4), wherein:
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 4) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 4) is positioned at a second wavelength from 420 nm to 440 nm (P1 is at 430 nm as shown below in fig. 4); and
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 4) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 4) is greater than or equal to about 70% (Tmax = 75% as shown below in fig. 4).
PNG
media_image12.png
521
847
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fukagawa does not explicitly disclose, wherein the minimum transmittance of the transmittance valley is positioned at a first wavelength from 450 nm ± 1% to 475 nm ± 1%.
However, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of the transmittance valley V1 at 488 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 450 nm ±1% to 475 nm ±1% that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the transmittance valley V1 such that 450 nm ±1% to 475 nm ±1% since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Fukagawa discloses all the limitations of claim and further discloses, wherein
the lens has an ultraviolet (UV) transmission cutoff at a third wavelength from about 380 nm to about
400 nm (UV cut off is at 400 nm as shown below in fig. 4, the instant application states "In some
embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies
within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 361 nm to 420
nm).
PNG
media_image12.png
521
847
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Fukagawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses,
wherein an average transmittance of the optical filter in a spectral range of about 420 nm to about 440
nm is greater than about 70% (the average transmittance from 420 nm to about 440 nm is above 70%
fig. 4, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can
indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5%
of the value" which is a range of 67.5% to 73.5%).
PNG
media_image12.png
521
847
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 32-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 202201075 A1).
Regarding claim 32, McCabe discloses in at least figure 8B, A lens of an eyewear comprising an
optical filter (optical filter included in an activity specific lens paragraph [0031]), wherein:
the optical filter (optical filter paragraph [0188]) is configured to switch between a light state
(shooting in low light represented by the solid line paragraph [0188] in fig. 8B as described where the
light state is in the low light environment paragraph [0071] of the current application) and a dark state
(shooting in bright light is represented by the dashed line paragraph [0189] in fig. 8B as described where
the dark state is in the bright light environment paragraph [0071] of the current application);
a transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter (transmission profile fig. 8B) comprises a
transmission valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) having a minimum transmittance (Tmina as shown below in fig. 8B) with a spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 8B);
the minimum transmittance (Tmina as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as
shown below in fig. 8B) is positioned at a first wavelength from about 450 nm to about 475 nm (Tmina of
V1 is at 475 nm fig. 8B); and
the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 8B), equal to the full width (FW = 490 nm -
455 nm = 35 nm as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) at
the minimum transmittance (Tmina as shown below in fig. 8B) plus 30% (SB= 35 nm as a result of the
values above, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and
"substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%,
±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 28.5 nm to 31.5 nm), when in the light state (low
light solid line paragraph [0177] fig. 8B).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
McCabe does not explicitly disclose, the spectral bandwidth, equal to the full width of the
transmittance valley at the minimum transmittance plus 30%, is less than or equal to about 30 nm when
in the light state (low light solid line paragraph [0177] fig. 8B).
However, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where
the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals
Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper
a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron,
balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum,
balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close
that prim a facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See
M PEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 35 nm which is so close to the claimed range
of 31.5 nm that prim a facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties. 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 the spectral band with such that it is less than 31.5 nm since it
has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not
overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d
775,783,227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an
alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a
reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel,
0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the
art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 8B), equal to the full width (FW = 485 nm – 465 nm = 20 nm as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 36) at the minimum transmittance (Tminb as shown below in fig. 36) plus 5% is below 45 nm (SB = 20 nm as a result of the values above, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 23.75 nm to 47.25 nm) when in the dark state (dashed line fig. 2).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
McCabe does not explicitly disclose, the spectral bandwidth, equal to the full width of the transmittance valley at the minimum transmittance plus 5% is from about 25 nm to about 45 nm.
However It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of SB = 20 nm which is so close to the claimed range of about 25 nm to about 45 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 SB such that SB is about 25 nm to about 45 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 34, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 8B), equal to the full width (FW = 480 nm – 470 nm = 10 nm as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) at the minimum transmittance (T-minb as shown below in fig. 8B) plus 1%, is from about 3 nm to about 15 nm (SB = 10 nm as a result from the values above) when in the dark state (dashed line fig. 2).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 8B), equal to the full width (FW = 480 nm – 470 nm = 10 nm as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) at the minimum transmittance (Tminb as shown below in fig. 8B) plus 1% is from about 7 nm to about 15 nm (SB = 10 nm as a result from the values above).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, wherein the spectral bandwidth (SB as shown below in fig. 8B), equal to the full width (FW = 480 nm – 470 nm = 10 nm as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) at the minimum transmittance (Tminb as shown below i--n fig. 8B) plus 1% is from about 3 nm to about 10 nm (SB = 10 nm as a result from the values above).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein a blue light transmittance (blue light 380 nm to 500 nm) of the lens is less than about 75% (the
transmittance is less than 70% fig. 8B) when in the light state (solid line fig. 8B) and wherein the blue
light transmittance (blue light 380 nm to 500 nm) of the lens is (the transmittance is 28% fig. 8B, the
instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a
value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the
value" which is a range of 19% to 21%) when in the dark state (dashed line fig. 2).
McCabe does not explicitly disclose, wherein the blue light transmittance of the lens is less than
about 20% when in the dark state.
However, the blue light transmittance corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable
which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the blue light transmittance directly impacts the
e.g. the overall transmittance where it is advantages transmit less light in bright conditions (paragraph
[0190]). Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the blue light transmittance for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the transmittance in bright light
conditions.
Regarding claim 38, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, wherein the minimum transmittance (Tminb as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) is from about 0% to about 10% (T-minb -is at 2% as shown below in fig. 8B) when in the dark state (dashed line fig. 2).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the minimum transmittance (Tminb as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance valley (V1 as shown below in fig. 8B) is from about 2% to about 5% (Tminb = 2% fig. 8B) when in the dark state (dashed line fig. 8B).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, wherein the first wavelength is from about 455 nm to about 465 nm (V1 is at 475 nm as shown below in fig. 8B, "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 432.25 nm to 488.25 nm).
Regarding claim 41, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, wherein the optical filter (optical filter included in an activity specific lens paragraph [0031] and the optical filter is at least partially incorporated into a lens coating disposed over the lens body paragraph [0006]) further comprises an anti-reflection layer (the lens 102 can include an antireflection coating paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 42, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, wherein the optical filter (optical filter included in an activity specific lens paragraph [0031] and the optical filter is at least partially incorporated into a lens coating disposed over the lens body paragraph [0006]) comprises one or more organic dyes (the lens body can be impregnated with, loaded with, or otherwise comprise one or more organic dyes paragraph [0006]).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 43, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein an average transmittance of the optical filter in a spectral range of about 425 nm to about 450
nm is (the average transmission= 50% as shown below calculated from the values in fig. 8B, the instant
application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of
a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which
is a range of 57% to 63%) when in the light state (solid line fig. 8B).
PNG
media_image14.png
182
661
media_image14.png
Greyscale
McCabe does not explicitly discloses, wherein an average transmittance of the optical filter in a
spectral range of about 425 nm to about 450 nm is greater than about 60% when in the light state.
However, the transmittance from 425 nm to about 450 nm corresponds to a result-effective
variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the transmittance directly
impacts the e.g. the overall transmittance where it is advantages transmit more light in low light
conditions (paragraph [0190] ). Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges
of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the
instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the transmittance from 425 nm to about 450 nm for the purpose of
e.g. optimizing the transmittance in low light conditions.
Regarding claim 44, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, wherein the transmittance spectral profile of the optical filter further comprises a transmission peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 8B) having a maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 8B), wherein:
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 8B) is positioned at a second wavelength from about 400 nm to about 450 nm (P1 is at 425 nm as shown below in fig. 8B); and
the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 8B) of the transmittance peak (P1 as shown below in fig. 8B) is greater than or equal to about 60% (P1 is at 59% as shown below in fig. 8b, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and "substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of above 57%) when in the light state (low light solid line paragraph [0177] fig. 8B).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 45, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the maximum transmittance (Tmax as shown below in fig. 8B) the transmittance peak (P1 = 28%
as shown below in fig. 8B, the instant application states "In some embodiments, the terms "about" and
"substantially" can indicate a value of a given quantity that varies within 5% of the value (e.g., ±1%, ±2%,
±3%, ±4%, or ±5% of the value" which is a range of 19% to 21%) when in the dark state (dashed line fig.
8B).
PNG
media_image13.png
616
1233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
McCabe does not disclose, wherein the maximum transmittance the transmittance peak is from
about 5% to about 20% when in the dark state.
However, the transmittance peak corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable
which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the transmittance peak directly impacts the e.g.
the overall transmittance where it is advantages transmit less light in bright conditions (paragraph
[0190]). Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify the blue light transmittance for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the transmittance in bright light
conditions.
Regarding claim 46, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the lens is a plano lens (The lenses can have various shapes, including plano-plano and meniscus shapes paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 47, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses,
wherein the lens is corrective lens (the eyewear can be of any type vision-correcting eyewear paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 48, McCabe discloses all the limitations of claim 32 and further discloses, an
eyewear (eyewear 100 includes lenses 102a, 102b having a chroma-enhancing optical filter paragraph [0039]) comprising the lens of claim 32 (see claim 32 rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brocheton (US 10336647 B2) discloses a UV blocking glass composition with a transmission valley at 450 nm).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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 at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872