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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are currently pending.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, Chinese Patent Publication CN 10191797 A.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aitken, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0322571 A1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6 April 2026 and 13 April 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “an amount of TiO2 is 5.0 to 40.0 mass%”, “an amount of Nb2O5 is 20.0 to 60.0 mass%”, and “a mass ratio [TiO2/Nb2O5] between the amount of TiO2 and the amount of Nb2O5 is 0.8 or less”. This renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how the ratio of [TiO2/Nb2O5] can equal zero. The lowest the [TiO2/Nb2O5] ratio can be is 0.083.
Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected as indefinite since they depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 without correcting the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, Chinese Patent Publication CN 10191797 A.
A machine-generated translation of CN 10191797 A accompanied the IDS filed 11 November 2025. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Sun teaches an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 16-40% of P2O5, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0.5-10% of BaO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0010]-[0016] and [0041]-[0051]. Sun teaches that the optical glass has a refractive index 1.91-1.98. See paragraph [0060]. Sun teaches that the optical glass has an Abbe number of 1-20. See paragraph [0060]. Sun teaches that the optical glass is used to make an optical element. See paragraphs [0002], [0004], and [0060].
Sun fails to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-8 and 10-17. However, the weight percent ranges taught by Sun have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1-8 and 10-17. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Sun overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, and 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, wherein the glass has a refractive index of 1.91-1.98, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], [0048], [0049], and [0060]), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 10-40% of P2O5, 5-40% of TiO2, at least 0.01% of K2O, and 20-60% of Nb2O5, wherein the optical glass has a sum of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO of at most 20%, a sum of TiO2+Nb2O5 of at least 55%, a mass ratio of K2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of at least 0.5, a mass ratio of (MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO)/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 0.3-10, a mass ratio of TiO2/K2O of at least 3, a mass ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO)/(K2O+BaO) of at most 0.8, and a mass ratio of TiO2/Nb2O5 of at most 0.8, wherein the glass has a refractive index of 1.955 or greater, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, and 0-5% of B2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0050]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of (TiO2+Nb2O5)/(SiO2+B2O3+Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of at least 2.65, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0051]), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 40-80% of TiO2+Nb2O5+WO3+Bi2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0051]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of P2O5/(P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.15-0.40, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0051]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of TiO2/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 1-30, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0051]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of BaO/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) is greater than or equal to 0, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0051]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of TiO2/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO), as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Sun teaches a glass in terms of weight percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-5% of B2O3, and 0-5% of Bi2O3, (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0041]-[0044], and [0047]-[0051]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5+WO3+Bi2O3), as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 10, Sun teaches a glass having an Abbe number of 14-20, (see paragraph [0060]), which reads on an optical glass having an Abbe number of 15.0-20.0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a specific gravity of at most 4.20 as recited in claim 11.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a ratio of the refractive index to the specific gravity (nd/d) of a0.48-0.60, as recited in claim 12.
As to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a glass transition temperature Tg of 380-800°C, as recited in claim 13.
As to claim 14, Sun teaches the optical glass is used to make an optical element (see paragraphs [0002], [0004], and [0060]), which reads on an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Sun teaches the optical glass is used to make an optical element (see paragraphs [0002], [0004], and [0060]), which reads on an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Sun teaches the optical glass is an optical element (see paragraphs [0002], [0004], and [0060]), which reads on an optical element, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Sun teaches the optical glass is an optical element (see paragraphs [0002], [0004], and [0060]), which reads on an optical element, as recited in instant claim 17.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aitken, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0322571 A1.
Aitken teaches an optical glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0031]-[0043]. Aitken teaches that the optical glass has a refractive index 1.75-2.05. See paragraph [0049]. Aitken teaches that the optical glass is used to make an optical articles. See paragraphs [0053]-[0056].
Aitken fails to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-8 and 10-17. However, it is believed that the mole percent ranges taught by Aitken if converted to weight percentages would have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1-8 and 10-17. Aitken teaches Example 25, which nearly anticipates the composition and property ranges of claims 1-8 and 10-17. See Table 4 of Aitken. Furthermore, the Examples of Aitken comprising K2O, Examples, 8, 9, 12-14, 25, 27, 29, 31, 44-46, and 50-52, have compositional ranges in terms of weight percentages: 19.9-35.1% of P2O5, 7.25-31.70% of TiO2, 4.19-16.50% of K2O, 0-3.74% of ZnO, 0-8.75% of BaO, 30.20-57.9% of Nb2O5, and 1.07-2.17% of B2O3. See Tables 1-7 of Aitken. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Aitken overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, wherein the glass has a refractive index of 1.75-2.05, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043] and [0049]), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 10-40% of P2O5, 5-40% of TiO2, at least 0.01% of K2O, and 20-60% of Nb2O5, wherein the optical glass has a sum of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO of at most 20%, a sum of TiO2+Nb2O5 of at least 55%, a mass ratio of K2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of at least 0.5, a mass ratio of (MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO)/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 0.3-10, a mass ratio of TiO2/K2O of at least 3, a mass ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO)/(K2O+BaO) of at most 0.8, and a mass ratio of TiO2/Nb2O5 of at most 0.8, wherein the glass has a refractive index of 1.955 or greater, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of (TiO2+Nb2O5)/(SiO2+B2O3+Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of at least 2.65, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 40-80% of TiO2+Nb2O5+WO3+Bi2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of P2O5/(P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.15-0.40, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of TiO2/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 1-30, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of BaO/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) is greater than or equal to 0, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio of TiO2/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO), as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Aitken teaches a glass in terms of mole percentages 1-70% of TiO2, 1-40% of Nb2O5, 20-45% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-45% of BaO, 0-45% of ZnO, 0-10% B2O3, 0-10% of SnO2, and 0-20% of K2O, (see paragraphs [0031]-[0043]), which reads on an optical glass having a mass ratio TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5+WO3+Bi2O3), as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have an Abbe number of 15-20, as recited in claim 10.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a specific gravity of at most 4.20, as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a ratio of the refractive index to the specific gravity (nd/d) of a0.48-0.60, as recited in claim 12.
As to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a glass transition temperature Tg of 380-800°C, as recited in claim 13.
As to claim 14, Aitken teaches the optical glass is used to make an optical element (see paragraphs [0053]-[0056]), which reads on an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Aitken teaches the optical glass is used to make an optical element (see paragraphs [0053]-[0056]), which reads on an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Aitken teaches the optical glass is an optical element (see paragraphs [0053]-[0056]), which reads on an optical element, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Aitken teaches the optical glass is an optical element (see paragraphs [0053]-[0056]), which reads on an optical element, as recited in instant claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 6 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sun and Aitken. The rejections are presented above.
As to applicant’s arguments that Sun fails to disclose a refractive index of 1.955 or more, this is not found persuasive since Sun teaches an optical glass having overlapping ranges of components and having a refractive index in the range of 1.91-1.98. See paragraph [0060].
As to Applicant’s arguments that Aitken to teach the ratio of [TiO2/Nb2O5] of at most 0.8, this is not found persuasive since Aitken teaches ranges of TiO2 and Nb2O5 wherein the ratio could fall within the recited range. Aitken teaches Examples 8, 9, 12-14, 25, 27, 29, 31, 44-46, and 50-52, which have compositional ranges in terms of weight percentages: 19.9-35.1% of P2O5, 7.25-31.70% of TiO2, 4.19-16.50% of K2O, 0-3.74% of ZnO, 0-8.75% of BaO, 30.20-57.9% of Nb2O5, and 1.07-2.17% of B2O3 and have a TiO2/Nb2O5 ratio of 0.13-1.0 , which reads on the ratio being at most 0.8. See Tables 1-7 of Aitken
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 Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
28 May 2026
Prosecution Insights