DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to communication filed on 10/07/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s amendments filed on 10/07/2025 to the specification, drawings, and claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claims 1-16 have been canceled.
Claims 17-23 have been added.
Claims 17-23 are examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/07/2025 have been fully considered because claims 1-16 are canceled, thus, the claim objection and 112 rejection are withdrawn.
The objections to the drawings and the specification are withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the arguments are not persuasive. For applicant’s arguments to the new claims, please refer to the 101 rejection below for more details regarding the eligibility analysis.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding performing Fourier transform recited in the claims, the examiner submits that performing Fourier transform of a matrix falls into the grouping of math concept. The claims do not provide any technical improvements or any improvement to the functioning of a computer. Please refer to the 101 rejection below for details regarding the eligibility analysis.
Regarding the prior art rejection they are moot in view of new ground of rejection
as necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 17-18 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in claims 17 and 21-23 recite “the number of terms” should read “a number of terms”.
Claim 18 recites “the ascertained results” should read “[[the]] ascertained results”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to processes (claims 1 and 21-23: methods and CRM), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claims 17 and 21-23, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using groupings of mental process and math concept including “specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens” (claims 17 and 21-22), and “specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens through simulation processing in which a wave-optical calculation is used” (claim 23);
“determining whether or not a power distribution of the spectacle lens is appropriate using the Zernike expansion results as an evaluation index (claims 17 and 23); designing the spectacle lens using the Zemike expansion results as an evaluation index (claim 21); and “determining whether or not an optical characteristic of the spectacle lens is appropriate, using the Zemike expansion results as an evaluation index” (claim 22). Grouping of math concept including ”performing Fourier transform of the specified wavefront of the spectacle lens, and performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix for integrating the number of terms of Zemike polynomials into one, or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials” and “performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zemike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens “ (claims 17 and 21-23).
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations as recited in the preamble, i.e., a lens evaluation (claim 17), lens designing (claim 21), and lens manufacturing (claim 22) refer to a field of use because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite no additional limitation that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus, claims 17 and 21-23 are not sufficient to integrate the claims into a particular practical application.
Dependent claims 18-20 do not disclose limitations considered to be significantly more which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which and do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. Claim 17-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 23 recite “a step of determining whether or not a power distribution of the spectacle lens is appropriate, using the Zemike expansion results as an evaluation index”, and Claim 22 recites “a step determining whether or not an optical characteristic of the spectacle lens is appropriate, using the Zemike expansion results as an evaluation index”, are indefinite. It is unclear what the scope of the term “appropriate” is (e.g., appropriate with respect to what?), or whether or not it means “… is appropriate [[,]] using the Zemike expansion results as an evaluation index.” For purpose of examination, it is interpreted “… is appropriate using the Zemike expansion results as an evaluation index.”
Dependent claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim 17.
Claim 18 recites “the matrix obtained by determining the weighting amounts for the Zemike coefficients” is indefinite. It is unclear what “matrix” Applicant refers to whether “Fourier transform of a matrix”, “a pseudo-inverse matrix”, or “Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix”, as recited in claim 17? It is noted these matrices are different functions.
For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as the best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Esser et al., hereinafter “Esser”, US patent 9733491 (of record) in view of US 2011/0119011 of Yamazoe and US patent 7748848 of Dai.
As per Claim 17, Esser teaches a lens evaluation method, comprising:
a step of specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens and a step of performing Fourier transform of the specified wavefront of the spectacle lens (wavefront starts at the object point and propagates up to the first spectacle lens surface, see col 2 lines 47-56, abstract. It is noted Fourier transform is a fundamental tool for analyzing and describing “wavefront propagation”); and
step of determining whether or not a power distribution of the spectacle lens is appropriate using the Zernike expansion results as an evaluation index (spectacle lens is an optical element with two refractive boundary surface considered refractive power or power distribution, col 2 lines 30-46, col 32 lines 45-47, col 13 lines 16-22. It is noted Zernike polynomials form a basis set and created from a weighted sum of Zernike polynomials and the sum changes the quality of the approximation. Also, refractive index is an evaluation index for spectacle lens).
Esser does not teach performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one, or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials; a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Yamazoe teaches performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix (pseudo-inverse matrix [0056, [0084]) for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one (Fig 12A, [0072], the Zernike polynomials of expression 1 [0093], in the expression 1, i is equals to 1 [0039]), or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Esser to perform Fourier transform of matrix for terms of Zernike polynomials into one as taught by Yamazoe that would show coefficients of the Zernike polynomial for the actual system error that was calculated with sufficient accuracy and to increase the accuracy by correcting to a higher order (Yamazoe, [0094]).
Esser in view of Yamazoe does not teach a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Dai teaches a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix (multiplying Fourier transform, col 46 lines 44-65) or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens (Fourier expansion coefficients, col 45 lines 59-65, col 49 lines 56-62, col 26 line 45 to col 27, col 47 lines 34 to col 48 line17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Esser and Yamazoe to performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform to obtain Zernike expansion at all points as taught by Dai that would provide Fourier transform reconstruction method for more accurate reconstruction of the actual wavefront, i.e., gives better resolution without aliasing (Dai, col 13 lines 21-28).
As per Claim 18, Esser in view of Yamazoe and Dai teaches the lens evaluation method according to claim 17, Esser further teaches comprising the following steps performed prior to the step of specifying the wavefront of the spectacle lens:
a step of ascertaining visual perception of a spectacle wearer of the spectacle lens (refraction of spectacle lens wearer, col 2 lines 47-51);
a step of determining weighting amounts for Zernike coefficients of respective terms in a weighted sum evaluation of Zernike polynomials relating to a surface shape of the wavefront of the spectacle lens, based on the ascertained results of the spectacle wearer's visual perception (visual point of surface, abstract: first 6 lines, “weighting factors” considered as a part of a weighting sum of Zernike polynomials, col 2 lines 11-17 and 30-33, col 11 lines 33-40. It is noted two refractive boundary surfaces considered a weighted combination of Zernike polynomials); and
a step of calculating and storing the matrix obtained by determining the weighting amounts for the Zernike coefficients (col 9 lines 28 to col 10 line 21, col 11 lines 13-24, col 29 to col 31. It is noted Zernike coefficients as “weight” of each Zernike polynomial basis function as wavefront or surface, are calculated and stored as numerical values, i.e., in a vector or matrix).
As per Claim 19, Esser in view of Yamazoe and Dai teaches the lens evaluation method according to claim 17, Esser teaches wherein the predetermined terms are a weighted sum of a plurality of predetermined terms of the Zernike polynomials (col 2 lines 11-36 – It is noted predetermined terms of the Zernike polynomials are considered Zernike coefficients, which are calculated “weighted sum” prior to their use in optical systems. These coefficients are derived from the Zernike polynomials are used to describe the wavefront function of optical systems with circular pupils).
As per Claim 20, Esser in view of Yamazoe and Dai teaches the lens evaluation method according to claim 17, Esser does not teach wherein in regard to the expansion coefficients, 1 is applied as a weight to each rotationally symmetric component. Yamazoe teaches in regard to the expansion coefficients, 1 is applied as a weight to each rotationally symmetric component (a rotation mechanism around the x axis [0089]. It is noted a rotation mechanism around the x-axis is a form of rotational symmetry) when expansion using the Zernike polynomials is performed (Fig 12A, [0072], the Zernike polynomials of expression 1 [0093], in the expression 1, i is equals to 1 [0039]). It is noted the numerical value associated with each specific polynomial in the expansion is its expansion coefficient). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Esser to apply rotation mechanism component as taught by Yamazoe that would perform coordinate transformation and rotation on the Zernike polynomial, i.e., representing the upper limit of the system error that is removed (Yamazoe, [0040]).
As per Claim 21, Esser teaches a lens designing method (spectacle lens design, col 2 lines 11-17, col 35 lines 46-48), comprising:
a step of specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens and a step of performing Fourier transform of the specified wavefront of the spectacle lens (wavefront starts at the object point and propagates up to the first spectacle lens surface, see col 2 lines 47-56, abstract. It is noted Fourier transform is a fundamental tool for analyzing and describing “wavefront propagation”); and
a step of designing the spectacle lens using the Zernike expansion results as an evaluation index (spectacle lens is an optical element with two refractive boundary surface considered refractive power or power distribution, col 2 lines 30-46, col 32 lines 45-47, col 13 lines 16-22. It is noted Zernike polynomials form a basis set and created from a weighted sum of Zernike polynomials and the sum changes the quality of the approximation. Also, refractive index is an evaluation index for spectacle lens).
Esser does not teach performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one, or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials; and a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Yamazoe teaches performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix (pseudo-inverse matrix [0056, [0084]) for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one (Fig 12A, [0072], the Zernike polynomials of expression 1 [0093], in the expression 1, i is equals to 1 [0039]), or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Esser to perform Fourier transform of matrix for terms of Zernike polynomials into one as taught by Yamazoe that would show coefficients of the Zernike polynomial for the actual system error that was calculated with sufficient accuracy and to increase the accuracy by correcting to a higher order (Yamazoe, [0094]).
Esser in view of Yamazoe does not teach a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Dai teaches a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix (multiplying Fourier transform, col 46 lines 44-65) or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens (Fourier expansion coefficients, col 45 lines 59-65, col 49 lines 56-62, col 26 line 45 to col 27, col 47 lines 34 to col 48 line17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Esser and Yamazoe to performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform to obtain Zernike expansion at all points as taught by Dai that would facilitate mathematical treatment and ability to relate wavefront expansion coefficients between two different sets of basis functions (Dai, col 35 lines2-6).
As per Claim 22, Esser teaches a lens manufacturing method (col 38: Claim 10), comprising:
a step of specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens and a step of performing Fourier transform of the specified wavefront of the spectacle lens (wavefront starts at the object point and propagates up to the first spectacle lens surface, see col 2 lines 47-56, abstract. It is noted Fourier transform is a fundamental tool for analyzing and describing “wavefront propagation”); and
a step of determining whether or not an optical characteristic of the spectacle lens is appropriate, using the Zernike expansion results as an evaluation index (spectacle lens is an optical element with two refractive boundary surface considered refractive power or power distribution, col 2 lines 30-46, col 32 lines 45-47, col 13 lines 16-22, where “optical property” or “refraction” is “optical characteristics” of spectacle lens, col 2 line 61 to col 3 line 8). It is noted Zernike polynomials form a basis set and created from a weighted sum of Zernike polynomials and the sum changes the quality of the approximation. Also, refractive index is an evaluation index for spectacle lens).
Esser does not teach performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one, or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials; and a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Yamazoe teaches performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix (pseudo-inverse matrix [0056, [0084]) for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one (Fig 12A, [0072], the Zernike polynomials of expression 1 [0093], in the expression 1, i is equals to 1 [0039]), or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Esser to perform Fourier transform of matrix for terms of Zernike polynomials into one as taught by Yamazoe that would show coefficients of the Zernike polynomial for the actual system error that was calculated with sufficient accuracy and to increase the accuracy by correcting to a higher order (Yamazoe, [0094]).
Esser in view of Yamazoe does not teach a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Dai teaches a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix (multiplying Fourier transform, col 46 lines 44-65) or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens (Fourier expansion coefficients, col 45 lines 59-65, col 49 lines 56-62, col 26 line 45 to col 27, col 47 lines 34 to col 48 line17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Esser and Yamazoe to performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform to obtain Zernike expansion at all points as taught by Dai that would facilitate mathematical treatment and ability to relate wavefront expansion coefficients between two different sets of basis functions (Dai, col 35 lines2-6).
11. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Esser in view of Yamazoe, Dai and further US 2020/0285071 of Trumm et al., hereinafter Trumm.
As per Claim 23, Esser teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having thereon a lens evaluation program for causing a computer to execute (col 38: Claim 9): a step of performing Fourier transform of the specified wavefront of the spectacle lens (wavefront starts at the object point and propagates up to the first spectacle lens surface, see col 2 lines 47-56, abstract. It is noted Fourier transform is a fundamental tool for analyzing and describing “propagated wavefront”); and
a step of determining whether or not a power distribution of the spectacle lens is appropriate, using the Zernike expansion results as an evaluation index (spectacle lens is an optical element with two refractive boundary surface considered refractive power or power distribution, col 2 lines 30-46, col 32 lines 45-47, col 13 lines 16-22. It is noted Zernike polynomials form a basis set and created from a weighted sum of Zernike polynomials and the sum changes the quality of the approximation. Also, refractive index is an evaluation index for spectacle lens).
Esser does not teach a step of specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens through simulation processing in which a wave-optical calculation is used; performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one, or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials, wherein the matrix or the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms is read from a memory where it is stored; and a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Yamazoe teaches performing Fourier transform of a matrix corresponding to a pseudo-inverse matrix (pseudo-inverse matrix [0056, [0084]) for integrating the number of terms of Zernike polynomials into one (Fig 12A, [0072], the Zernike polynomials of expression 1 [0093], in the expression 1, i is equals to 1 [0039]), or Fourier transform of a pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining expansion coefficients for predetermined terms of Zernike polynomials; wherein the matrix or the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms is read from a memory where it is stored (data items are read from memory, [0072], [0035], [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Esser to perform Fourier transform of matrix for terms of Zernike polynomials into one and obtaining expansion coefficients as taught by Yamazoe that would show coefficients of the Zernike polynomial for the actual system error that was calculated with sufficient accuracy and to increase the accuracy by correcting to a higher order (Yamazoe, [0094]).
Esser in view of Yamazoe does not teach a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens.
Dai teaches a step of performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform of the wavefront by the Fourier transform of the matrix (multiplying Fourier transform, col 46 lines 44-65) or the Fourier transform of the pseudo-inverse matrix for obtaining the expansion coefficients for the predetermined terms, in a Fourier space, to obtain Zernike expansion results at all points of the spectacle lens (Fourier expansion coefficients, col 45 lines 59-65, col 49 lines 56-62, col 26 line 45 to col 27, col 47 lines 34 to col 48 line17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Esser and Yamazoe to performing inverse-Fourier transform of a product obtained by multiplying the Fourier transform to obtain Zernike expansion at all points as taught by Dai that would facilitate mathematical treatment and ability to relate wavefront expansion coefficients between two different sets of basis functions (Dai, col 35 lines2-6).
Esser in view of Yamazoe, and Dai does not teach a step of specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens through simulation processing in which a wave-optical calculation is used.
Trumm teaches a step of specifying a wavefront of a spectacle lens through simulation processing in which a wave-optical calculation is used (simulate the propagation of the wavefront to optimize spectacles lenses [0363], [0027], [0221], [0293]-[0294]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Esser, Yamazoe, and Dai to specify a wavefront of a spectacle lens though simulation as taught by Trumm that would simulate the propagation of the wavefront to optimize spectacles lenses (Trumm, [0221]).
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 extension fee 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857