DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/03/2026, wherein Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 7, 27, 28, and canceled claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 30. Claims 40-44 are newly added. Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 13-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 40-44 are pending
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2023 and 04/19/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Claims 6-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ) in the prior office action. The applicant canceled claims 6 and 8. The rejections are withdrawn for claims 6 and 8.
Applicant amended claim 7, which depends on claim 1, therefore the rejection for claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,5,6,7,8, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1)
Applicant amended claim 1, thus the rejections are withdrawn for claim. The rejections for claims 2,5,6,7,8, and 15 are withdrawn as they depend on claim 1, which is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Doud et al. (US 20180243130 A1).
Claim 3 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US20210026044 A1) in view of Andino et al. (US2005/0200034A1)
Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of and Doud et al. (US 20180243130 A1) and further in view of Prentice et al. (US 2021/0329820 A1).
Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Andino et al. (US2005/0200034A1) and further in view of Prentice et al. (US 2021/0329820 A1).
Claims 12, and 13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Prentice et al. (US 2021/0329820 A1)
Claims 14, 27, 28, and 29 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Hoffmann (DE 102016001188 A1).
Claim 15, 18, 19, and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view Neal et al. (US20040041978A1)
Claim 22 was rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Ben Nun (US 20070244561A1).
The rejections are withdrawn as claim 1, 4 were amended, and claim 3 was canceled.
Updated Rejections to address the amendments:
3. Claims 1, 7, 40, 41, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US20210026044 A1) in view of Andino et al. (US2005/0200034A1)
Regarding Claim 1: Jacoby et al. teach an apparatus for filling a lens 14 with fluid 15 [fig 5]. The apparatus is comprised of a hard lens 14 with a membrane 11 (dynamic membrane) with an enclosure 16 (internal chamber) [para 79]. The enclosure 16 has a space enough to contain optical fluid as shown in figs 6a and 6b.
The apparatus also comprised of a source of fluid 15 (optical liquid) stored in tank 51 (dispenser), needle 23 (filling needle) that is connected with tank 51 through fluid line 56 [fig 5; para 83]. The tank 51, fluid 15 stored in tank 15, needle 23 corresponds to the claimed dispensing system. The needle 23 injects optical fluid to the enclosure 16 of lens assembly 10 through a direction, that direction corresponds to the claimed “first region” [fig 6a]. When optical fluid is injected, part of the needle 23 (distal opening of filling needle) is placed inside enclosure 16 [fig 6a; para 85-86].
The apparatus also comprised of a vacuum pump 42 and vacuum chamber 52. The chamber 52 and pump 42 are connected are shown in fig 5 (venting system). Vacuum pump 42 creates a vacuum environment within chamber 52 [para 81]. The apparatus further includes lens meter 40a, 40b (measurement system) that measures the optical power of membrane 11 (lens zone). [para 0089; Fig. 6c, 6d, 6e].
The lens assembly 10 has a distensible tensioned membrane 11 which is held around its perimeter by a support structure 12 (lens fixture) which is a resiliently bendable support ring 12 (corresponds to holding system) [para 76, 85; Fig 4b, 4c, 4d, 6a]. The lens assembly is positioned in such a way that needle 23 can be used to inject fluid and measure optical power of the membrane 11 using the lens meter. [para 89; Fig 6c, 6d, 6e]
Vacuum chamber 52 and the optical device 10 including the support structure 12 (support structure 12 labeled in fig 6a) and filling arrangement is spaced inside vacuum space 60 in fig 5.
Jacoby et al. do not teach, “a vent needle having a distal opening configured to penetrate a second region of the injection zone of the lens device located away from the first region so that a distal opening of the vent needle is positioned inside the internal chamber of the lens device” and
However, Andino et al. teach a mold apparatus that is comprised of a vent needle 42 where one part of the needle is extended into cavity 35 (vent needle is positioned inside the internal chamber of the lens device) through an opening 38 and other part of the needle is connected to a vacuum source (vacuum pump) [para 66; fig 1B].
Andino further teaches needle 42 is also used to facilitate filling (penetrate) when inserted into cavity 35[para 66]. Also shown in the configuration of fig 1A, a fill needle 40 and vent needle 42 are across from each other (second region of the injection zone of the lens device located away from the first region).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fill needle and vent needle configuration into the invention of Jacoby et al. because Andino et al. teach that vent needle can be used to evacuate the mold cavity during the filling process. [para 75].
Regarding Claim 7: Jacoby et al. disclose in fig 5 that the lens assembly/optical device 10 (lens device) is located inside vacuum chamber 52. When optical device is located inside a vacuum chamber during operation, the optical device, in which the enclosure 16 (internal chamber) is located, will inherit the same vacuum pressure as the vacuum chamber. [claim 14 Jacoby et al.]
Regarding Claim 40: Jacoby teach vacuum pump 42 (venting system) to create a vacuum space 60 within vacuum chamber 52 [para 81]. Vacuum chamber is in vacuum means that no air is present within that chamber as air is removed by vacuum pump 42. Jacoby does not teach a vent needle that removes air from internal chamber of lens
Andino et al. teach a mold apparatus that is comprised of a vent needle 42 where one part of the needle is extended into cavity 35 (vent needle is positioned inside the internal chamber of the lens device) through an opening 38 and other part of the needle is connected to a vacuum source (vacuum pump) [para 66; fig 1B].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fill needle and vent needle configuration into the invention of Jacoby et al. because Andino et al. teach that vent needle can be used to evacuate the mold cavity during the filling process. [para 75].
Regarding Claim 41: Jacoby teaches membrane 11 (dynamic membrane) is planar within vacuum chamber 52, where air is removed by pump 42 from chamber 52 [fig 5, 6a, 6b or 6c].
Regarding Claim 42: Jacoby teaches a proper curvature of membrane 11 is achieved when enclosure 16 (internal chamber) is filled with enough amount of optical fluid 15 by needle 23 [fig 6b].
Jacoby does not specifically teach or mention about removal of vent needle
Andino teaches removal of filling needle 40 and vent needle 42 after filling a cavity (internal chamber) with liquid [para 66]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize removing needles after filling a lens cavity with fluid.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fill needle and vent needle configuration into the invention of Jacoby et al. because Andino et al. teach that vent needle can be used to evacuate the mold cavity during the filling process. [para 75].
Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 42 does not recite additional structural limitations, rather they are directed to a purpose of the apparatus or intended use. Accordingly, such limitations carry no patentable weight. (See MPEP 2111.02.II)
Regarding Claim 43: The limitations recited in claim 43 does not recite additional structural limitation rather they are directed to a preamble of the apparatus or purpose of the apparatus or intended use. Accordingly, such limitations carry no patentable weight. (See MPEP 2111.02.II)
4. Claims 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Andino et al. (US2005/0200034A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Prentice et al. (US 2021/0329820 A1)
Regarding Claim 4 and 12: Jacoby et al. and Andino et al. disclose a lens filling apparatus as described above in claim 1. However, the combination of Jacoby et al. and Andino et al. do not teach a gantry system.
Prentice et al. disclose a dispensing system comprised of a gantry system 44. The gantry system is coupled to a nozzle to apply viscous material to substrate. [claim 1; para 003]. The gantry system can move along X, Y, and Z axes [para 003].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gantry into the vent needle configuration and filling needle taught by the combination of Andino et al. and Jacoby et al. because Prentice et al. teach that gantry system can move along X, Y, and Z axes [para 003]
Regarding Claim 13: Jacoby et al. disclose a lens filling apparatus as described above in claim 1. Jacoby et al. do not teach a gantry system. However, Prentice et al. disclose a dispensing system comprised of a gantry system (44). The gantry system (44) is coupled to a nozzle/dispensing system (40) to apply viscous material to substrate [claim 1; para 003; para 070; fig 2, 3]. The gantry system can move along X, Y, and Z axes [para 003].
One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the gantry system can be included into the invention of Jacoby et al. to penetrate enclosure and support the needle subassembly by attaching it on top of needle subassembly 28 as shown in the annotated figures 6(b) and (c) below. This would lead to an increased flexibility of positioning the filling needle while filling operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a gantry system into the needle disclosed by Jacoby et al. because Prentice et al. teach that gantry system can move along X, Y, and Z axes and due to the gantry, it would create a flexibility to use the filling needle in order to penetrate the lens as shown in the diagram below.
PNG
media_image1.png
641
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
5. Claims 14, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Andino et al. (US2005/0200034A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hoffmann (DE 102016001188 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Jacoby et al. disclose a lens filling apparatus as described above in claim 1. The apparatus is comprised of a valve 54 connected between fluid 15 and needle subassembly 28 to control the flow of the fluid being injected into optical device 10 [fig 5].
Jacoby et al. do not teach a needle valve.
However, Hoffmann teaches a coating applicator that is comprised of a needle valve to control delivery of application material (optical material) through outlet nozzle. The valve needle is moved to the left (for closing) and right (for opening) by pneumatically driven piston 14. [para 39-43; fig 4]. When needle valve is opened material flows through outlet nozzle 15.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute a needle valve with the valve taught by Jacoby et al. and position the needle valve between the optical fluid and the needle because Hoffman teaches that closing the valve at the tip of the nozzle would prevent forming leftovers when nozzle stops dispensing. [para 0023]
Regarding claim 27, 28, and 29: Jacoby et al. disclose a lens filling apparatus as described above in paragraph 4. The apparatus is comprised of a valve 54 connected to fluid chamber 51 (dispenser) with fluid 15 (source of fluid) and needle subassembly 28 to control the flow of the fluid being injected into optical device 10 [fig 5]. Vacuum pump 42 creates vacuum in chamber 52 (claim 29).
Jacoby et al. do not teach a needle valve connected to fluid dispenser and to the source of optical fluid.
However, Hoffmann teaches a coating applicator that is comprised of a pneumatically triggered needle valve (claim 27) to control delivery of application material through outlet nozzle [para 39- 43; fig 4]. When the valve needle is moved to a left direction, in regards to fig 4, by pneumatically driven piston (claim 29) the valve gets to a closed configuration and stops material flow (claim 28) [para 0042]. Hoffmann further teaches that the valve needle is moved to the right, for opening, by pneumatically driven piston (14) which leads to material flow [para 0041; fig 4]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized to add a needle valve between fluid source and filling needle so that necessary amount of fluid is provided.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute a needle valve with the valve taught by Jacoby et al. and connect the needle valve to chamber 52 because Hoffman teaches that the needle valve controls flow of material [para 0002].
6. Claims 15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Andino (US 20180243130 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view Neal et al. (US20040041978A1)
Regarding Claim 15, 18 and 19: The combination of Jacoby et al. and Andino disclose a lens filling apparatus as described above in claim 1. The apparatus is comprised of lens meter (40a, 40b) (measurement system) to measure the optical power of a lens.
Jacoby et al. and Andino do not specifically teach the measurement system measures a radius of curvature, the measurement system being a moveable a non-contact probe, and the measurement system is a confocal sensor or a Shack- Hartmann wavefront sensor.
Neal et al. teach a wavefront analysis system (100) (measurement system) to measure an optical power, and radius of curvature of a lens/SUT (140) [para 86, and claim 33]. The measurement system comprised of a light source (110) with a moveable platform (120) (moveable stage), an objective lens (150), an eyepiece lens (170), a processor (190) and a Shack- Hartman Sensor (180). [para 0041-0048; Fig 1].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a moveable platform and assemble it into the Shack-Hartmann sensor and further include the combination into the lens filling apparatus of Jacoby et al. because Neal et al. teach that the moveable platform helps adjusts positioning relative to lens or the holder of the lens SUT and a Shack- Hartman sensor has a greater dynamic range [para 45-46] and provides accurate measurements [para 11-15]
Regarding Claim 21: Jacoby et al. and Andino disclose an apparatus as described above in claim 1. The apparatus is comprised of lens meter (40a, 40b) (measurement system) to measure the optical power of a lens.
Jacoby et al. and Andino do not specifically teach that the measurement system is configured to monitor the lens zone of the lens device simultaneously and in real-time during filling of the internal chamber with the filling needle.
However, Neal et al. teach a wavefront analysis system (100) (measurement system) comprised of a Shack-Hartmann sensor. The sensor continuously tracks (monitoring) focal spot positions across different frames to measure changes of wavefront shapes when a component changes optical characteristics (filling lens with liquid enlarges a lens) such as material heating or deformation. Neal et al. also teach that tracking is frequently performed when frames are taken frequently, thereby establishes real time monitoring of a lens [para 15-19].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a wavefront analysis system into the invention of Jacoby et al. because Neal et al. teach that the wavefront analysis system is configured to determine focal length of a lens/SUT [para 60].
7. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US 20210026044 A1) in view of Andino (US 20180243130 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ben Nun (US 20070244561A1).
Regarding Claim 22: Jacoby et al. and Andino disclose an apparatus as described above in claim 1.
Jacoby et al. and Andino do not specifically teach a AIOL assembly having a recess and a central aperture.
However, Ben Nun discloses an Accommodating Intraocular Lens (AIOL), and AIOL assemblies. The AIOL assembly includes a central aperture (73) and grooves (63) (recess). The groove (63) is structured in a way such that lens (74) can fit into the assembly (33). Fig 5 depicts the expanded view of different parts that can fit within the AIOL assembly. Fig 5 also suggests that lens (74) will be positioned over the central aperture (73). Fig 11 shows when every element of fig 5 is assembled together.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the AIOL assembly with the lens assembly of Jacoby et al. for the purpose of alignment and secure position of a lens while providing access to the enclosure of the lens for filling or measuring through central aperture.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415- 421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
8. Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (US20210026044 A1) in view of Andino et al. (US2005/0200034A1) and further in view of Doud et al. (US 20180243130 A1).
Regarding Claim 44: The combination of Jacoby and Andino teaches an apparatus recited above in claim 1.
Jacoby and Andino fails to teach the size of vent needle.
However, Doud et al. teach a fluid exchange apparatus that is comprised of a syringe including a needle (vent needle) which is positioned inside a chamber (440) (internal chamber). Syringe (300) draws fluid from chamber (440) through needle (330) by extending into chamber (440) [para 0206; fig 23A]. Doud et al. also suggest that the syringe (300) can be used to inject fluid as well [para 0129]. The needle is a 33-gauge needle (small needle) [para 269]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to fluidly couple the syringe including the needle into the vacuum pump of Jacoby et al. and place it inside the lens enclosure taught by Jacoby et al. because Doud et al. teach that the needle assists in displacing fluid from receiver container and injecting fluids depending on the needs as shown below in annotated Fig 23A [para 0206, 0129].
PNG
media_image2.png
601
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s remarks filed on 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The Combination of Jacoby and Doud Fails to Teach the Claimed Filling Apparatus For a Treatment Device
Doud Constitutes Non-Analogous Art
Doud's Syringe and Needle Do Not Correspond to the Claimed Vent Needle and Vacuum Chamber
The Proposed Modification Requires Substantial Redesign and Alters the Principle of Operation
The Claimed Configuration Provides Technical Advantages Not Suggested by the References
Lack of Motivation and Impermissible Hindsight
Even If the References Were Combined, the Claimed Invention Would Not Result
10. In response to the applicant’s remarks, please consider the following comments.
a. Doud is not being relied upon for its dual-lumen single injection drug delivery system. It is being relied upon for the teaching of the 33-gauge needle suitable for fluid injection within an enclosed chamber. Doud’s preference for a single penetration of an implant septum does not discourage the use of the needle in a different fluid handling environment such as Jacoby’s apparatus. The mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.
Therefore, Doud does not teach away from the proposed combination, and the rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Doud’s preferred embodiment
b. In response to applicant's argument that Doud reference is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the rejection does not rely on Doud for its implantable drug delivery system rather is relied on the syringe-needle assembly that is configured to exchange fluid within an enclosed chamber. In this case, both Doud and the applicant’s invention are in the same technology that is directed to needle-based fluid exchanging.
Accordingly, under MPEP 2141.01(a) Doud reference is an analogous art.
c. The relevant teaching is that Doud discloses a small needle extending into an enclosed chamber for controlled exchange of fluid. The intended use of Doud’s system does not limit the application of this teaching to other needle-based fluid exchanging systems.
Additionally, there is no requirement that Doud disclose a lens device enclosed within a vacuum chamber, filling needle. The rejection relies on Jacoby for those features. Doud is cited for the needle and its functionality used for fluid exchange similar to the claimed vent needle. One having ordinary skilled in the art would have recognized the advantage of incorporating Doud’s needle into Jacoby’s apparatus. (MPEP 2145.X.D.1; 2141.02.VI)
d. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The rejection does not require a redesign of Jacoby, but only requires a predictable modification of a device to include an additional vent needle for penetration or venting. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize this modification as a routine design choice. Furthermore, the modification does not change the principal operation of Jacoby’s device.
e. The discussion of the limitations directed to the technological advantages were amended into claims and are fully addressed above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection portion.
f. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Doud teaches the uses of small syringe-needle configuration for controlled fluid exchange within an enclosed chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Doud’s needle in Jacoby for proper fluid filling or venting, which is a predictable result.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
g. Obviousness does not require the prior art to teach every single claim limitation in identical form, the prior art must teach the claimed limitation, suggest or combination yield predictable results. Jacoby teaches a filling apparatus and Doud teaches a syringe-needle configuration and combining these teachings would have reasonably resulted in a fluid filling system with venting and filling within an enclosed environment as claimed. Assertions regarding pressure-neutral filling and elimination of overfilling relate to intended results and do not overcome the rejection where structural features are taught or suggested.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights