DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, it is noted that “support structure” was amended by Applicant to “support”, and the Remarks appear to refer to the previous 112f interpretation as a rejection. 112f interpretations are not rejections. When certain limitations invoke 112f, these limitations are interpreted according to the corresponding structures of the specification and equivalents thereof. To the extent that these terms were amended so as to not invoke 112f, something which has not been argued, it is noted that “support” also invokes 112f. This is explained in detail in the section “Claim interpretation” below. In fact, all of the indicated allowable subject matter includes and is based on said interpretation, as it did before.
As to Claims 1, 14 and 16, Jin already teaches using a silicone rubber pad having carbon powder in conjunction with sensor electrodes of an eyeglass temple arm. Silicone rubber is well known to include transparent forms, such as PDMS, and these forms are well known to be used in conjunction with electrodes, as taught by Sridhar. Simply selecting transparent PDMS from the available silicone rubbers would meet Claims 1, 14 and 16.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are: “support” in claims 1, and 13-16.
The term “support” (of a “sensor arrangement for attachment to a head of a user” in Claims 1, 13 and 16, of “data eyeglasses” in Claims 14-15) is a nonce functional term that also serves as a generic placeholder, and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the entirety of the function of “support” and “to mount the…sensor on the head of the user such that the…sensor is arranged on an area between an ear and the head of the user”. The term is interpreted as “temple of…eyeglasses” (2:15-16) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) on page 6, lines 4-5, “arranged in an between” should be “arranged in between”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
1) Claim 12 depends on cancelled claim 10, and thus “according to Claim 10” also lacks clear antecedence.
For examination purposes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 12 is taken to depend on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9955895 by Jin in view of US 20160081577 by Sridhar.
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 14, Jin discloses data eyeglasses (e.g. 10:29-58: data eyeglasses such as Google Glass head mounted display) comprising a sensor arrangement for attachment to a head of a user (e.g. 7:32-47, Fig. 5B: eyeglass frame 100 with electrodes 102 and 103), comprising:
a first electrical sensor (e.g. 7:32-47, Fig. 5B: eyeglass frame 100 with pairs of electrodes 102 and 103 in each arm/temple of the frame);
a support structure configured to mount the first sensor on the head of the user such that the first sensor is arranged on an area between an ear and the head of the user [e.g. 7:32-47, 8:25-38, 10:29-31, Fig. 5A: the temple arms 101 of the eyeglass frame 100 support the pair of electrodes 102 and 103; Fig. 5B clearly shows that at least electrodes 102 are arranged on an area between an ear and the head of the user, and furthermore: a) the area as claimed includes the entirety of a person’s head, and is certainly not limited to the mastoid process area, b) relying solely on the anatomy of a user to limit functionality expands the scope to cover not only intended use, but also cover the intended use in terms of and in dependence to the natural variability of a hypothetical subject’s anatomy (e.g. a child wearing adult sized glasses), and c) as noted in b, the limitation in drawn to an intended use, and the temple arms of the device of Jin are capable of mounting the electrodes, e.g. electrodes 102, on the head of the user such the electrode 102 is arranged on an area between an ear and the head of some hypothetical user, an explicit example of this being shown in Fig. 5B); and
a connecting element made of an elastic material configured to provide indirect contact between the first sensor and a scalp of the user (e.g. 10:29-58: the electrodes in contact with the head near the zygomatic arch include electrode pads, which may be conductive carbon powder filled silicone rubber),
wherein the connecting element is at least partially made of an electrically conductive material (e.g. 10:29-58: carbon powder),
wherein the connecting element includes a first electrical region made of the electrically conductive material (e.g. 10:29-58: any region that contains even a single carbon particle of the carbon powder).
Jin does not explicitly disclose that the connecting element includes a second optical region, made of transparent material, or that the connecting element is at least partially made of translucent material.
However, Sridhar teaches that silicone rubbers can be transparent, and also teaches use thereof in conjunction with analogous EEG sensors (e.g. ¶ 78: transparent PDMS, a silicone rubber, used as electrode mold). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select transparent PDMS as the silicone rubber of a device according to the teachings of Jin, as taught by Sridhar, as: a) the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art (In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)), b) the selection among known and limited options of silicone rubbers predictably performing the function of Jin’s silicone rubber (e.g. support, cushioning) in the carbon silicone rubber pad would have been obvious to try, and c) Sridhar teaches that this would permit visualization of the electrode during head positioning (¶78).
Regarding Claim 2, Jin as modified in Claim 1 teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the support structure is a first temple of data eyeglasses of the user (e.g. 10:29-58: temple arms 101 of data eyeglasses such as Google Glass head mounted display), and the first sensor is arranged on an outer side of the first temple (e.g. 10:30-31: “electrode pads on the temple arms”).
Regarding Claim 3, Jin as modified in Claim 1 teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the sensor arrangement includes the first sensor, and wherein the first sensor is an EMG sensor (e.g. 13:63-65, 11:49-51: the sensor does sense and use EMG signals).
Regarding Claim 16:
Jin discloses a sensor arrangement for attachment to a head of a user (e.g. 7:32-47, Fig. 5B: eyeglass frame 100 with electrodes 102 and 103), comprising:
a first electrical sensor (e.g. 7:32-47, Fig. 5B: eyeglass frame 100 with pairs of electrodes 102 and 103 in each arm/temple of the frame);
a support structure configured to mount the first sensor on the head of the user such that the first sensor is arranged on an area between an ear and the head of the user [e.g. 7:32-47, 8:25-38, 10:29-31, Fig. 5A: the temple arms 101 of the eyeglass frame 100 support the pair of electrodes 102 and 103; Fig. 5B clearly shows that at least electrodes 102 are arranged on an area between an ear and the head of the user, and furthermore: a) the area as claimed includes the entirety of a person’s head, and is certainly not limited to the mastoid process area, b) relying solely on the anatomy of a user to limit functionality expands the scope to cover not only intended use, but also cover the intended use in terms of and in dependence to the natural variability of a hypothetical subject’s anatomy (e.g. a child wearing adult sized glasses), and c) as noted in b, the limitation in drawn to an intended use, and the temple arms of the device of Jin are capable of mounting the electrodes, e.g. electrodes 102, on the head of the user such the electrode 102 is arranged on an area between an ear and the head of some hypothetical user, an explicit example of this being shown in Fig. 5B); and
a connecting element made of an elastic material configured to provide indirect contact between the first sensor and a scalp of the user (e.g. 10:29-58: the electrodes in contact with the head near the zygomatic arch include electrode pads, which may be conductive carbon powder filled silicone rubber),
wherein the connecting element is at least partially made of an electrically conductive material (e.g. 10:29-58: carbon powder),
wherein the connecting element includes a first electrical region made of the electrically conductive material (e.g. 10:29-58: any region that contains even a single carbon particle of the carbon powder).
Jin does not explicitly disclose that the connecting element includes a second optical region, made of transparent material.
However, Sridhar teaches that silicone rubbers can be transparent, and also teaches use thereof in conjunction with analogous EEG sensors (e.g. ¶ 78: transparent PDMS, a silicone rubber, used as electrode mold). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select transparent PDMS as the silicone rubber of a device according to the teachings of Jin, as taught by Sridhar, as: a) the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art (In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)), b) the selection among known and limited options of silicone rubbers predictably performing the function of Jin’s silicone rubber (e.g. support, cushioning) in the carbon silicone rubber pad would have been obvious to try, and c) Sridhar teaches that this would permit visualization of the electrode during head positioning (¶78).
Thus, Jin implicitly meets the limitations of “a method used for manufacturing a sensor arrangement for attachment to a head of a user, the method comprising the following steps:
connecting a first electrical sensor with a support structure of the sensor arrangement, wherein the support structure is configured to attach the first sensor on the head of the user such that the first sensor is arranged in an between an ear and the head of the user; and
connecting a connecting element made of an elastic material to the support structure, the connecting element configured to provide at least indirect contact between the first sensor and a scalp of the user,
wherein the connecting element is at least partially made of an electrically conductive material,
wherein the connecting element includes a first electrical region made of the electrically conductive material, and a second optical region, made of transparent material.”, as follows:
Claim 16 is directed to a method of manufacturing the product of Claim 1 verbatim, by two steps of “connecting” which are implicit in Claim 1 and taught by Jin. Without reading any particular order into the claims, the two steps are “connecting” the sensor to the support structure, and “connecting” the connecting element to the support structure. These steps are already implicit in Claim 1, as would be immediately apparent to phosita. This is also the reason a restriction has not been required thus far. There is no way to manufacture parts which are connected in the end-product, without the step of connecting them. Jin discloses the end-product of electrodes and electrode pads connected to the support structure of the temple arms of eyeglass frames, thus implicitly teaches connecting the electrodes and electrode pads with the temple arms (sections noted in the discussion of Claim 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin/Sridhar, as applied to Claim 1, in view of US 8203502 by Chi (cited previously).
Regarding Claim 4, Jin as modified in Claim 1 teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 3, further comprising:
a third electrical sensor (10:48-58: microphone and accelerometer), and
wherein the third sensor is a microphone (10:48-58: microphone and accelerometer).
Jin does not disclose wherein the support structure is configured to mount the third sensor on the head of the user in such a way that the third sensor is situated at a distance from the scalp of the user.
However, Jin suggests that his sensing system is integrated in a device according to the teachings of Chi (14:19-20,42), and that such design would typically include a microphone (14:45-54). Chi teaches an analogous data eyeglass device which includes a microphone arranged in the support frame at a distance from the scalp of the user (Fig. 4, 5:45-54, 7:51-61: microphone 404). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate that the support structure is configured to mount the third sensor on the head of the user in such a way that the third sensor is situated at a distance from the scalp of the user in a device according to the teachings of Jin, as taught by Chi, as: a) Jin explicitly suggests doing so (14:19-20,42,45-54), b) this would predictably permit the user to speak control voice commands in a human-machine interface system, as suggested by Chi (7:51-61), and c) to prevent obstruction of the microphone by the head of the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin/Sridhar, as applied to Claim 1, in view of US 2018/0146870 by Shemesh (cited previously).
Regarding Claim 5, Jin teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor arrangement includes the second sensor, and wherein the second sensor a PPG sensor and/or an fNIR sensor.
However, Shemesh teaches an analogous eyeglass monitoring system, wherein the temple arms of the eyeglasses include multiple sensors, including an optical PPG sensor (e.g. ¶42-43,81,92,125: Smart glasses with two PPG sensors, one in each of temples). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate optical PPG sensors on the temples of an eyeglass device according to the teachings of Jin, as taught by Shemesh, as: a) Jin suggests including medical diagnosis or monitoring in their system, b) this would predictably enable monitoring of HRV, oxygen saturation, breathing rate, sleep apnea, heart arrhythmias and/or glucose levels (as suggested by Shemesh, ¶43), all of which yielding valuable information regarding the health status and behavior of the user, and c) Shemesh suggests that combinations of electrical and optical sensors would enable derivation of biological parameters which are not measurable by the sensors individually (¶38). Also note here that the connecting elements is not required to be a single structure.
Claims 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin/Sridhar, as applied to Claim 1, in view of US 4,269,189 by Abraham and US 2020/0383594 by Souhoka (cited previously).
Regarding Claim 6, Jin discloses the sensor arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element is a pad (e.g. 10:29-58: the electrode pads are conductive carbon powder filled silicone rubber, ie. a pad), yet does not explicitly teach that the pad comprises a gel.
However, electrode gel pads were well known in the art, and examples are offered by Abraham and Souhoka. Abraham teaches an analogous electrode assembly which includes an electrode embedded in a conductive gel pad so as to provide good electrical contact with the patient’s skin (e.g. abstract, 2:1-15, 50-60, Fig. 1: electrode 12 enclosed by gel pad 16). Souhoka teaches an analogous wearable flexible health monitoring device for application on a user’s head, which includes electrode contact gel pads (¶11-12,20,27, Fig. 1: EEG electrode carrier for contact with the head, including electrode contact gel pads 112a/112b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate gel pads over the electrodes of a device according to the teaching of Jin/Sridhar, as taught by Souhoka and Abraham, in order to predictably conduct electrical signals, and provide a skin interface with heat transfer properties which enhance skin cooling.
Regarding Claim 7, Jin as modified in Claim 6 discloses the sensor arrangement according to claim 6, wherein the sensor arrangement includes the first sensor, and the first sensor is arranged on an outer side of the support structure (e.g. 10:30-31: “electrode pads on the temple arms”), and is at least partially enclosed by the gel pad (e.g. Abraham: abstract, 2:1-15, 50-60, Fig. 1: electrode 12 enclosed by gel pad 16; Souhoka, ¶47, Fig. 1: electrodes 103a/103b are at least partially enclosed on their top surface by electrode gel pads 112a/112b; Note here that “at least partially enclosed” includes even covering a part of one surface).
Regarding Claim 9, Jin as modified in Claim 1 teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting element is integrated into an outer side of the support structure.
Jin shows the electrode pads 102 as integrated within the temple arms 101 (Fig. 5B), as well as on the outer surface of the temple arms (Fig. 5B: electrode pads 103; (e.g. 10:30-31: “electrode pads on the temple arms”). A person having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand and recognize that the pads would conduct electrical signal to the electrodes via contact with the skin. In other words, some form of exposure of the contact pads to the skin would be indicated, if not necessary, in order to monitor the electrical signals as taught. Souhoka teaches an analogous wearable flexible health monitoring device for application on a user’s head, which includes electrode contact gel pads integrated onto the outer surface of the carrier device (¶11-12,20,27, Fig. 1: EEG electrode carrier for contact with the head, including electrode contact gel pads 112a/112b; ¶12: the gel pads are integrated on the carrier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the pads on the outer surface of the temple arms in a device according to the teachings of Jin, as taught by Souhoka, as: a) in the event of integrating electrodes (such as electrodes 103) arranged on the temple arms to the temple arms, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993) [also see MPEP 2144.04.V.B ], b) in the event of simply exposing the integrated pads (such as electrode pads 102), mere reversal, rearrangement, and omission of parts have all long been held as within the skill of the ordinary artisan [MPEP 2144.04.II and 2144.04.VI], and c) this would predictably provide a conductive contact surface with the subject for signal monitoring, as suggested by Souhoka and would be readily apparent to phosita.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin/Sridhar, as applied to Claim 1, in view of US 10809796 by Armstrong-Muntner.
Regarding Claim 8, Jin as modified in Claim 1 teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 1, yet does not explicitly disclose that the sensor arrangement includes the optical sensor disposed in a cavity of the support (eyeglass temple), and wherein the connecting element closes the cavity in an outward direction. However, Armstrong-Muntner teaches an analogous sensor arrangement (13:36-50, Fig. 2A: data eyeglasses 100 with sensors 114), including an optical sensor disposed in a cavity of the eyeglass temple (14:39-67, Fig. 2A: left and right temple arms 101tl and 101tr, which include sensors 114), wherein a connecting element closes the cavity in an outward direction (as seen in Fig. 2H, the optical sensor 114i is in a cavity of the eyeglass frame 101, the compliant member 115 enclosing the cavity in an outward direction; also see 18:22-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate optical sensors disposed in a cavity, and under a connecting element, of a temple arm of eyeglasses according to the teachings of Jin, as taught by Armstrong-Muntner, in order to predictably sense head gestures, motions, vocalizations, emotions, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and biometric characteristics of the user (e.g. Armstrong-Muntner, 3:53—4:30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15 are allowed. Applicant has amended previous Claims 13 and 15, which were previously indicated as allowable, to be in independent form.
The prior art does not reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious, either alone or in combination, claim 13, taken as a whole. The closest prior art is US 9955895 by Jin, yet it fails to teach wherein the sensor arrangement includes the first sensor of the eyeglass temple, and wherein the connecting element further includes at least one electrical contacting element, including a wire integrated into the connecting element, wherein the electrical contacting element is configured to connect electrically the first sensor with the scalp of the user.
The prior art does not reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious, either alone or in combination, claim 15 taken as a whole. The closest prior art is US 9955895 by Jin, yet it fails to teach the computing unit of the sensor arrangement configured to compare the received first sensor data [from an eyeglass temple mounted accelerometer, pressure sensor or EMG sensor] with stored first sensor data, and to activate a microphone of the eyeglasses based on the comparison. Relevant art US 9,814,426 by Connor activates a camera when detecting chewing with a microphone (75:14-27), yet does not teach activating a microphone of the eyeglasses based on an eyeglass mounted accelerometer, pressure sensor or EMG sensor.
Claim 12 (when read as dependent on Claim 1) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious, either alone or in combination, claim 12 (as dependent on Claim 1) taken as a whole. The closest prior art is US 9955895 by Jin, yet it fails to teach wherein the second optical region directly borders the first region, in combination with the other limitations of Claim 1.
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 MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, EST.
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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at (571)272-4949. 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.
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
MANOLIS PAHAKIS /M.P./
Examiner
Art Unit 3792