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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 23, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 23, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of pending application 18/189069 has been reviewed, accepted and recorded.
Examiner’s Comments
Regarding the use of parentheses in the claims - Parentheses in claims are used to enclose reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings and are considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims, see MPEP 608.01(m).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on claim 1 being allowable since Chan in view of Kling (and/or Yamaguchi) fails to anticipate or make obvious having calculations and data analysis take part in the back end (i.e. in a cloud server), the examiner is unpersuaded. The rejection was not made over Chan in view of Kling. The rejection was over Chan using official notice with evidence of certain facts supported by Kling and a Wikipedia webpage. The examiner and applicant appear to agree that Chan has all of the claimed features, including a head mounted measurement/testing optical system of claim 1 and has a separate (not head mounted) external processor that does the backend calculations and data analysis. Specifically, exemplars of said external processor are listed in paragraph [0026] “e.g., in an associated portable electronic device, laptop computer, or other computing equipment.” The examiner and applicant also agree that Chan does not disclose said external processor is utilizing distributed computing (i.e. utilizing a cloud server). Applicant’s stated issue is to reduce the required processing power within the measurement device itself, see instant application paragraph [0009]. The examiner made Official Notice that a well known means to reduce local processing power is to use distributed processing, a.k.a. cloud computing. The examiner provided evidence of this. Specifically, Kling teaches an objective medical system and paragraph [0055] (emphasis added by examiner) addresses applicant’s issue and presents the claimed solution using “known distributed computing applications such as Internet server operations, and so appropriate techniques for reducing to computer program code the detection and assessment of available computing facilities, the dividing of the pipeline into threads or threaded task groups, and distributing of the same across the available computing facilities are known in the art.” Further, Wikipedia first sentence states “Cloud computing is the on-demand availability of computer system resources, especially … computing power”. To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, see MPEP 2144.03.C. Applicant has not stated why the noticed fact (i.e. a well known means to reduce local processing power is to use distributed processing, a.k.a. cloud computing) is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Applicant has not adequately traversed the examiner’s official notice (made with evidence), therefore the examiner’s assertion of official notice is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
Regarding applicant’s statement (emphasis in the applicant’s remarks) that: “The feature of "sensing split across the local device and the cloud server" is inventive not only because it provides for decreased processing energy requirements in the local device, allowing for full portability, but the division of data handling is split in such a way that was found to be optimal for maintaining energy efficiency and accuracy in sensing and correction.” The examiner is unpersuaded1. None of these beneficial features are claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on splitting the processing load between the local device and the cloud server leads to “surprising results,” the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant has not provided any evidence that analyzing data in cloud servers versus analyzing data on a local processor (e.g. a laptop) leads to an unexpected result. It has been held that “[a] showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997), see MPEP 2145.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a head-mounted visual acuity measurement system (200) comprising a plurality of miniaturized optical elements and a communication component communicatively coupled to a cloud server (300), configured to perform visual acuity measurement of an eye of the patient and transmit the measurement to the cloud server (300) such that sensing takes place partially in the cloud server (300)” in claim 1;
“instructions for performing calculations and data handling on the measurement and transmitting a correction to the measurement system (200)” in claim 1;
“wherein the measurement system (200) is further configured to accept the correction from the cloud server (300) and generate an eye prescription corresponding to the correction” in claim 1;
“a tunable lens system configured to correct a projected image according to aberration data obtained by the SHS (230);
“wherein the projected image is additionally used to create and maintain patient fixation” in claim 8; and
“a chip (240) communicatively coupled to the cloud server (300), configured to transfer the aberration data to the cloud server (300), receive output from the cloud server (300), and apply data compression algorithms to reduce size of the aberration data” in claim 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-13 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “a head-mounted visual acuity measurement system (200) comprising a plurality of miniaturized optical elements and a communication component communicatively coupled to a cloud server (300), configured to perform visual acuity measurement of an eye of the patient and transmit the measurement to the cloud server (300) such that sensing takes place partially in the cloud server (300)” particularly “sensing takes place partially in the cloud server” makes the claim vague and indefinite. Sensing is a physical activity, e.g. shining a light into an eye and taking an image or measuring changes. A “cloud” environment is signal environment in the ether2. It is unclear if the patient’s physical existence has been transformed to an ether existence (à la motion picture “Tron” 1982) so that the otherwise physical existence can be “sensed in the cloud” or if the physical sensed measurements are analyzed/processed in the cloud. In light of the specification that explicitly states: “calculations and data handling are performed in the back end, which resides in the Cloud” in paragraph [0025] the latter is presumed. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP 2173. To that end, the examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “configured to perform visual acuity measurement of an eye of the patient and transmit the measurement to the cloud server (300) such that calculations and data handling are performed of the measurement said calculations and said data handling on the measurement and transmitting a correction to the measurement system (200)”.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0174284, of record, with evidence of certain features provided by Wikipedia webpage “Cloud computing” as of 2022, of record, and Kling et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0206609, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Chan discloses a medical device (title e.g. figures 1 & 6 head-mounted display 10) for testing (inter alia abstract “… to measure refractive errors in the user's eyes”) and correcting visual acuity in a patient (inter alia abstract “… adjusting lens settings based on … measured refractive errors”), the medical device (e.g. 10) comprising: a head-mounted visual acuity measurement system (e.g. 10) comprising a plurality of miniaturized optical elements (e.g. lenses 20, 75, 80, 98, lenslet array 102 and/or pinhole aperture 76 & paragraph [0040] notes they are “reduced in size sufficiently to be carried in head mounted device 10”, i.e. miniaturized) and a communication component (e.g. control circuitry 42 paragraph [0026] “Communications circuits in circuitry 42 may be used to transmit and receive data”) communicatively coupled to external processor (inter alia paragraph [0026] “control circuitry 42 that is mounted in head-mounted device 10 and/or control circuitry that is mounted outside of head-mounted device 10 (e.g., in an associated portable electronic device, laptop computer, or other computing equipment)”), configured to perform visual acuity measurement of an eye of the patient (inter alia paragraph [0028] “input-output devices 44 may include a sensing system that measures the eye characteristics of the user's eyes”) and a processor (inter alia paragraph [0026] “42 may also include one or more microprocessors”); such that calculations and data handling are performed of the measurement takes place in the processor (implicit given the measurement, such as wavefront measurements noted in paragraph [0028] and paragraphs [0048-49] discussion of 42 “to determine the user's eye refractive errors … e.g. a diopter value or other eyeglasses prescription information”); and the processor is capable of executing computer-readable instructions (axiomatic) and a memory component (inter alia paragraph [0026] “42 may include storage such as hard-disk storage, volatile and non-volatile memory, electrically programmable storage for forming a solid-state drive, and other memory”) comprising computer-readable instructions for performing said calculations and said data handling on the measurement and transmitting a correction to the measurement system (implicit given the measurement, such as wavefront measurements noted in paragraph [0028] and paragraphs [0048-49] discussion of 42 “to determine the user's eye refractive errors … e.g. a diopter value or other eyeglasses prescription information”); wherein the measurement system (e.g. 10) is further configured to accept the correction from the processor (inter alia paragraph [0048] “eyeglasses prescription information specifying optical system settings to correct the user's vision by correcting refractive errors associated with eye”) and generate an eye prescription (inter alia paragraph [0061] “10 may use an eye sensing system … such as a Hartmann-Shack … refractive error measurement equipment … to measure the characteristics of a user's eye … e.g., to automatically measure refractive errors for the user's eyes and therefore determine a user's eye prescription for both the user's left and right eyes …”).
Chan does not disclose the external processor (e.g. paragraph [0026] “control circuitry that is mounted outside of head-mounted device 10 … e.g., in an associated portable electronic device, laptop computer, or other computing equipment”) is a cloud server.
Applicant’s stated issue is to reduce the required processing power within the measurement device itself, see instant application paragraph [0009].
The examiner takes Official Notice3 that it is well known that a means to reduce local processing power is to use distributed processing, a.k.a. cloud computing, as evidenced by Wikipedia (see first sentence “on-demand availability of computer system resources, especially … computing power”) and Kling (paragraph [0055] notes distributed computing applications such as Internet server operations are known). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the external processor in the medical device as disclosed by of Chan to be a cloud server since a cloud server is a well-known means to reduce local processing requirements, addressing applicant’s stated issues, as evidenced by Wikipedia and Kling.
Regarding claim 2 Chan teaches the medical device of claim 1, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the measurement system (e.g. 10) comprises a head-mounted, monocular, or binocular display system (inter alia title).
Regarding claim 3 Chan teaches the medical device of claim 1, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the memory component further comprises computer-readable instructions for sensing a visual acuity of the patient (implicit given paragraphs [0028, 0048-49 & 0061]).
Regarding claim 4 Chan teaches the medical device of claim 1, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the plurality of miniaturized optical elements comprises a miniaturized optical system (see figure 6 & paragraph [0040]) configured to send light (e.g. output light 88) to the eye of the patient (e.g. eye 46) using a waveguide (e.g. combination of waveguide 84 & 94), and collect the light scattered back (e.g. reflected light 90) using a miniature optical sensor (e.g. camera 106).
Regarding claim 5 Chan teaches the medical device of claim 4, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate the light back and forth (e.g. as indicated by directions 93 & 96).
Regarding claim 10 Chan teaches the medical device of claim 1, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the plurality of miniaturized optical elements (e.g. 20, 75, 80, 98, 102 and/or 76) comprise a plurality of miniaturized tunable optical lenses (inter alia paragraph [0027] “20 may include tunable lenses”).
Insofar as they are understood claims 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0174284, of record, in view of Yamaguchi et al. “Measurements of contrast sensitivity by an adaptive optics visual simulator” Optical Review, vol. 22, pp 629–636 (2015) , of record.
Regarding claim 6-7 Chan teaches the medical device of claim 5, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the measurement system (e.g. 10) further comprises: a light source (e.g. light source 72), and some of the plurality of miniaturized optical elements are configured to guide light from the light source to the waveguide (see figure 6) and the waveguide is configured to accept (see figure 6) the light from using a first grating (e.g. combination of couplers 82 & 83), and extract the light (e.g. 88) using a second grating (e.g. combination of couplers 86 & 92) towards the eye (e.g. 46); wherein the second grating (e.g. combination of 86 & 92) is further configured to couple the light comprising a wavefront reflected from the eye (e.g. 90) back into the waveguide (see figure 6); wherein the waveguide is further configured to reflect the light carrying the wavefront in the opposite direction through the waveguide (see figure 6); wherein the first grating (e.g. combination of 82 & 83) is further configured to direct the light comprising the wavefront to a Shack Hartmann Sensor (e.g. 106) for wavefront measurement (inter alia paragraph [0043]), as required by claim 6; and other of the plurality of miniaturized optical elements (e.g. 98, 100 and 102) are disposed in line with first grating (e.g. combination of couplers 82 & 83) and the SHS (e.g. 106), configured to accept the light directed towards the SHS to prevent cornea reflections from reaching the SHS (paragraph [0047] “100 … which is located at the focus of lens 98 and is used to filter out noise from the light”).
Chan does not disclose the optical elements guiding the light from the light source to the eye includes a dichroic mirror; and a polarizing beam-splitter, as required by claim 6; or the other optical elements between the first grating and the SHS is a polarization control, as required by claim 7.
Yamaguchi teaches a similar medical device (title e.g. figure 1) including controlling the device by an external processor (page 630 right column line 3 “was controlled by a personal computer”), a Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor that measures the aberrations in a patient’s eye (page 630 right column line 6-9 e.g. SHWS), a display (e.g. LCD1 and/or LCD2) a light source (e.g. laser diode LD) and a plurality of optical elements (see figure 1); and further teaches some of the optical elements guiding the light from the light source to the eye includes a dichroic mirror (e.g. dichroic beam splitter DB2) for the purpose of incorporating a visible light fixation target (e.g. stimulus image, see figure 3 & page 630 left column line 4-6); and a polarizing beam-splitter (e.g. PBS) that that is also in front of the SHS (e.g. SHWS) for the purpose of controlling the polarization of light from the light source (e.g. LD) into the path to the eye and separating the reflection from the eye to the SHS (e.g. SHWS). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the medical device as taught by Chan to have the optical elements guiding the light from the light source to the eye includes a dichroic mirror; and a polarizing beam-splitter; and the other optical elements between the first grating and the SHS is a polarization control as taught by Yamaguchi for the purpose of incorporating a visible light fixation target and controlling the polarization of light from the light source into the path to the eye and separating the reflection from the eye to the SHS.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi teaches the medical device of claim 6, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the measurement system (e.g. 10) further comprises: a display (e.g. display system 40) generating a projected image (axiomatic) and a tunable lens system (inter alia abstract “adjustable optical system may include tunable lenses” e.g. optical system 20 paragraph [0027] “20 may include tunable lenses”) configured to correct the projected image according to aberration data obtained by the SHS (230); wherein the projected image (inter alia abstract “Viewing comfort may be enhanced by adjusting display positions relative to the eye positions and/or by adjusting lens settings based on the content being presented on the display and/or measured refractive errors”).
Chan does not disclose the display is additionally used to create and maintain patient fixation.
Yamaguchi further teaches the display (e.g. LCD1 and/or LCD2) is used to create and maintain patient fixation (inter alia section 2 e.g. page 632 left column lines 3-5 “the subject observed the stimulus images”) for the purpose of measuring aberration when the patient’s focus at the patient’s far point (e.g. page 632 left column lines 7-9). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the medical device as taught by the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi to have the display additionally be used to create and maintain patient fixation as further taught by Yamaguchi for the purpose of measuring aberration when the patient’s focus at the patient’s far point.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi teaches the medical device of claim 6, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the first grating (e.g. combination of 82 & 83) comprises a diffraction grating or a holographic grating (inter alia paragraph [0046] “couplers such as volume holograms or other holographic couplers may be used in coupling light”).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi teaches the medical device of claim 6, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the second grating (e.g. combination of 86 & 92) comprises a diffraction grating or a holographic grating (inter alia paragraph [0046] “couplers such as volume holograms or other holographic couplers may be used in coupling light”).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi teaches the medical device of claim 8, as set forth above. Chan further teaches wherein the aberration data comprises spherical aberration data, cylindrical aberration data, or a combination thereof (inter alia paragraph [0028] “wavefront sensor such as a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor, Tscherning sensor, or a ray tracing sensor may be used to measure refractive errors in a user's eyes such as astigmatism, farsightedness, and nearsightedness” i.e. measured data includes spherical and cylindrical aberration data).
Insofar as it is understood claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0174284, of record, in view of Yamaguchi et al. “Measurements of contrast sensitivity by an adaptive optics visual simulator” Optical Review, vol. 22, pp 629–636 (2015) , of record, with evidence of certain features provided by Wikipedia webpage “Data compression” as of 2022, of record, and Vermuelen et al. US Patent Application Publication 2005/0198567, of record.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi teaches the medical device of claim 8 including the external processor being a cloud server, as set forth above. Chen further discloses it is further comprising a chip (e.g. 42) communicatively coupled to the external processor (paragraph [0026] “Communications circuits in circuitry 42 may be used to transmit and receive data”), configured to transfer the aberration data to the external processor (paragraph [0026] “…transmit and receive data”), receive output from the cloud server (paragraph [0026] “… transmit and receive data”).
Chen and Yamaguchi do not disclose or teach applying data compression algorithms to reduce size of the aberration data.
Applicant’s stated issue is to reduce the size of the aberration data transmitted, see instant application paragraph [0030].
The examiner takes Official Notice4 that it is well known that to reduce file sizes (applicant’s stated need) may be accomplished by using data compression algorithms, as evidenced by Wikipedia (see first sentence “data compression … is the process of encoding information using fewer bits than the original representation”) and Vermuelen (paragraph [0085] noting “data compression using any of the many types of compression algorithms known in the art can be used to reduce the total size of the files to be transferred over the internet to a web browser”) for the purpose of reducing file size (applicant’s stated need) thereby reducing download time and improving system performance (Vermuelen paragraph [0085]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the medical device as taught by the combination of Chan as modified by Yamaguchi to have data compression algorithms to reduce size of the aberration data for the purpose of reducing file size, addressing applicant’s stated issue, and thereby reducing download time and improving system performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0338074; in regards to a similar invention including measuring eye aberration using a Hartmann-shack sensor (inter alia paragraph [0025] e.g. figure 10 objective refraction module 430) where numerical computation for optical diagnosis (e.g. optical diagnosis module 450) of eye's optical quality is performed through cloud computing (inter alia paragraph [0050] e.g. paragraph [0071] “450 comprise numerical computation that is performed through the cloud computing 425” see figure 10).
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 5, 2026
1 See 112 rejection below regarding an interpretation of “such that sensing takes place partially in the cloud server" recited in claim 1.
2 “Signals,” per se, are not directed to any of the patentable statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.
3 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
4 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.