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 Amendment
The amendment filed October 28th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 1-5, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyles (US 2023/0204982) in view of Krieg-Kowald (US 2009/0268157), further in view of Goebel Quintana (US 2019/0151152).
Regarding claim 1, Boyles discloses a lens blank (Fig. 2B, element 220), comprising:
a first layer (214) having an anterior surface (108) and a posterior surface (surface adjacent to 212) and being formed a polymeric base material ([0437], “the optically transparent material can include molten resin, polycarbonate (PC)”) and one or more electromagnetic energy absorptive dyes ([0060], “chroma enhancement filter 214”, [0019], ““chroma enhancement filter” refers to a chroma enhancement material, a chroma enhancement dye”, [0059], “where chroma enhancement layer 214 can be adapted to attenuate … an optical transmittance for one or more wavelengths”); and
a second layer (208) bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer ([0059], “Chroma enhancement layer 214 can be placed over lens body 208's front surface 212”), the second layer having a posterior surface opposite to the first layer (210), the posterior surface of the second layer being configured to be surfaced or polished with a corrective prescription without effecting the first layer ([0040], “rear surface 210 can have spheric, toric, or cylindrical geometries with a non-zero base curve in a horizontal and/or vertical direction”),
the lens blank having an optical density equal to or less than 2 (as shown in Fig. 3B, the optical density OD for the lens across the spectrum is less than 2).
Boyles does not specifically disclose absorptive dyes homogenously dispersed throughout the bulk of the base material.
However Krieg-Kowald, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches absorptive dyes homogenously dispersed throughout the bulk of the base material (claim 5, “wherein said blocking and color balancing dyes are uniformly dispersed throughout said polymer matrix material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens blank of Boyles with the absorptive dyes homogenously dispersed throughout the bulk of the base material as taught by Krieg-Kowald, for the purpose of providing uniform protection across the lens ([0023]).
Modified Boyles does not specifically disclose a second layer formed of a clear polymeric material co-molded with and integrally bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer so as to form a single, unitary lens blank, the posterior surface of the second layer surfaced or polished with a corrective prescription without removal or alteration of the first layer.
However Goebel Quintana, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches a second layer formed of a clear polymeric material (Figs. 5-6, element 16, [0009], “The device and method herein provides a unitary structure formed of optical material such as polycarbonate, glass, polymers”) co-molded with and integrally bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer (element 14 is the first layer, [0022], “forming the projecting portions used for grinding corrective lenses, separately from the first lens portion, and then co-molding them during formation of the first lens portion”) so as to form a single, unitary lens blank ([0022], “yield a unitary structure of optical material”), the posterior surface of the second layer surfaced or polished with a corrective prescription without removal or alteration of the first layer ([0009], “The projections may be ground to the desired corrective and prescription lens, using conventional lens grinding machinery, in spite of the large and highly curved panoramic lens surrounding the projecting portions”, examiner interprets this to mean the first layer is not effected when grinding the second layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens blank of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald with the second layer formed of a clear polymeric material co-molded with and integrally bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer so as to form a single, unitary lens blank, the posterior surface of the second layer surfaced or polished with a corrective prescription without removal or alteration of the first layer as taught by Goebel Quintana, for the purpose of producing a lens device with added utility and function ([0022]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Boyles further discloses wherein the one or more energy absorbing dyes produce a generally uniform color across the first layer ([0033], “an overall color appearance of lenses 102A and 102B can be substantially gray”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Boyles further discloses wherein the first layer further comprises one or more UV stabilizers generally uniformly dispersed throughout the base material of the first layer ([0044], “an ultraviolet (UV) absorption layer in the optical filter”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Boyles further discloses a material as the base material of the first layer ([0039], “Lens body 208 can be formed of polycarbonate (PC)”).
Modified Boyles does not specifically disclose wherein the base material of the second layer is the same type of material as the base material of the first layer.
However Krieg-Kowald, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the base material of the second layer is the same type of material as the base material of the first layer ([0024], “Preferably, the optical filter of the present invention is formed using a polycarbonate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens blank of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein the base material of the second layer is the same type of material as the base material of the first layer as taught by Krieg-Kowald, for the purpose of making quality ophthalmic lenses ([0024]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above and Boyles further discloses wherein the base materials comprise a resin, thermoplastic, or polymer ([0024], “Preferably, the optical filter of the present invention is formed using a polycarbonate”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second layer has a thickness sufficient to have a full progressive prescription surfaced or polished into the posterior surface thereof without effecting the first layer.
However Goebel Quintana, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the second layer (Figs. 5-6, element 16) has a thickness sufficient to have a full progressive prescription surfaced or polished into the posterior surface thereof ([0030], “the shape of the projecting portion, defined by the sidewall intersecting the first surface of the first lens portion, can be formed in shapes as shown herein, or other shapes, which will allow for cutting of progressive lenses”) without effecting the first layer ([0009], “The projections may be ground to the desired corrective and prescription lens, using conventional lens grinding machinery, in spite of the large and highly curved panoramic lens surrounding the projecting portions”, examiner interprets this to mean the first layer is not effected when grinding the second layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens blank of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein the second layer has a thickness sufficient to have a full progressive prescription surfaced or polished into the posterior surface thereof without effecting the first layer as taught by Goebel Quintana, for the purpose of producing a lens device with added utility and function ([0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Boyles discloses a lens (Fig. 2B, element 220) configured to provide vision correction ([0031], “vision-correcting eyewear”) and attenuation of electromagnetic energy (as shown in Fig. 3B, there is high absorbance at around 400nm which examiner interprets as protection against laser), the lens comprising:
a first layer (214) having an anterior surface (108) and a posterior surface (surface adjacent to 212) and a generally uniform thickness therebetween (as shown in Fig. 2B, layer 214 has uniform thickness), the first layer being formed of a polymeric base material ([0437], “the optically transparent material can include molten resin, polycarbonate (PC)”) and one or more electromagnetic energy absorptive dyes ([0060], “chroma enhancement filter 214”, [0019], ““chroma enhancement filter” refers to a chroma enhancement material, a chroma enhancement dye”), the one or more dyes being configured to absorb electromagnetic energy ([0059], “where chroma enhancement layer 214 can be adapted to attenuate … an optical transmittance for one or more wavelengths”), one or more energy absorbing dyes producing a generally uniform color across the first layer ([0033], “an overall color appearance of lenses 102A and 102B can be substantially gray”); and
a second layer (208) bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer ([0059], “Chroma enhancement layer 214 can be placed over lens body 208's front surface 212”), the second layer ([0033], “lenses 102A and 102B can be configured to provide a substantially neutral visible light spectral profile”) having a posterior surface with a corrective prescription surfaced or polished therein ([0040], “rear surface 210 can have spheric, toric, or cylindrical geometries with a non-zero base curve in a horizontal and/or vertical direction”),
the lens having an optical density equal to or less than 2 (as shown in Fig. 3B, the optical density OD for the lens across the spectrum is less than 2).
Boyles does not specifically disclose absorptive dyes homogenously dispersed throughout the base material.
However Krieg-Kowald, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches absorptive dyes homogenously dispersed throughout the base material (claim 5, “wherein said blocking and color balancing dyes are uniformly dispersed throughout said polymer matrix material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens of Boyles with the absorptive dyes homogenously dispersed throughout the base material as taught by Krieg-Kowald, for the purpose of providing uniform protection across the lens ([0023]).
Modified Boyles does not specifically disclose a second layer formed of a generally clear polymeric material co-molded with and integrally bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer so as to form a single, unitary body, wherein the first layer remains unaltered during the surfacing or polishing of the corrective prescription.
However Goebel Quintana, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches a second layer formed of a generally clear polymeric material (Figs. 5-6, element 16, [0009], “The device and method herein provides a unitary structure formed of optical material such as polycarbonate, glass, polymers”) co-molded with and integrally bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer (element 14 is the first layer, [0022], “forming the projecting portions used for grinding corrective lenses, separately from the first lens portion, and then co-molding them during formation of the first lens portion”) so as to form a single, unitary body ([0022], “yield a unitary structure of optical material”), wherein the first layer remains unaltered during the surfacing or polishing of the corrective prescription ([0009], “The projections may be ground to the desired corrective and prescription lens, using conventional lens grinding machinery, in spite of the large and highly curved panoramic lens surrounding the projecting portions”, examiner interprets this to mean the first layer is not effected when grinding the second layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens blank of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald with the second layer formed of a generally clear polymeric material co-molded with and integrally bonded to the posterior surface of the first layer so as to form a single, unitary body, wherein the first layer remains unaltered during the surfacing or polishing of the corrective prescription as taught by Goebel Quintana, for the purpose of producing a lens device with added utility and function ([0022]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above and Boyles further discloses wherein the corrective prescription is a full progressive prescription ([0032], “Such lenses can be configured to correct for near-sighted or far-sighted vision or astigmatism”, lenses for correcting astigmatism are progressive lenses that correct for multiple focal points).
Regarding claim 17, Boyles discloses a method for forming a prescription ([0031], “vision-correcting eyewear”) and laser protective (as shown in Fig. 3B, there is high absorbance at around 400nm which examiner interprets as protection against laser) lens (Fig. 2B, element 220), the method comprising:
mixing one or more electromagnetic energy absorbing dyes ([0019], ““chroma enhancement filter” refers to a chroma enhancement material, a chroma enhancement dye”) into a polymeric base material ([0437], “the optically transparent material can include molten resin, polycarbonate (PC)”, [0060], “chroma enhancement filter 214”);
molding ([0437], “injection molding or casting a wafer that includes one or more wavelength filtering materials”) the mixture to form a first layer (214) of a lens blank ([0060], “chroma enhancement filter 214”), the first layer having an anterior surface (108) and a posterior surface (surface adjacent to 212) to provide the lens with an optical density equal to or less than 2 (as shown in Fig. 3B, the optical density OD for the lens across the spectrum is less than 2);
a second layer (208), the second layer having a posterior surface (210) opposite to the first layer (as shown in Fig. 2B, 210 is opposite the first layer 214); and
surfacing or polishing the posterior surface of the second layer with a corrective prescription ([0040], “rear surface 210 can have spheric, toric, or cylindrical geometries with a non-zero base curve in a horizontal and/or vertical direction”).
Boyles does not specifically disclose to produce a generally homogeneous mixture of the base material and dye(s), the dyes being homogenously dispersed throughout the bulk of the first layer.
However Krieg-Kowald, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches to produce a generally homogeneous mixture of the base material and dye(s) (claim 5, “wherein said blocking and color balancing dyes are uniformly dispersed throughout said polymer matrix material”), the dyes being homogenously dispersed throughout the bulk of the first layer (claim 5, “wherein said blocking and color balancing dyes are uniformly dispersed throughout said polymer matrix material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles with the to produce a generally homogeneous mixture of the base material and dye(s), the dyes being homogenously dispersed throughout the bulk of the first layer as taught by Krieg-Kowald, for the purpose of providing uniform protection across the lens ([0023]).
Modified Boyles does not specifically disclose co-molding a generally clear polymeric material directly onto the posterior surface of the first layer to form a second layer integrally bonded to the first layer so as to create a single, unitary lens blank, surfacing or polishing the posterior surface of the second layer with a corrective prescription without removing or altering any portion of the first layer.
However Goebel Quintana, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches co-molding ([0022], “forming the projecting portions used for grinding corrective lenses, separately from the first lens portion, and then co-molding them during formation of the first lens portion”, examiner interprets the projections to be the polymeric material) a generally clear polymeric material ([0009], “The device and method herein provides a unitary structure formed of optical material such as polycarbonate, glass, polymers”) directly onto the posterior surface of the first layer (Figs. 5-6, element 14) to form a second layer (element 16) integrally bonded to the first layer so as to create a single, unitary lens blank ([0022], “yield a unitary structure of optical material”), surfacing or polishing the posterior surface of the second layer with a corrective prescription without removing or altering any portion of the first layer ([0009], “The projections may be ground to the desired corrective and prescription lens, using conventional lens grinding machinery, in spite of the large and highly curved panoramic lens surrounding the projecting portions”, examiner interprets this to mean the first layer is not effected when grinding the second layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens blank of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald with the co-molding a generally clear polymeric material directly onto the posterior surface of the first layer to form a second layer integrally bonded to the first layer so as to create a single, unitary lens blank, surfacing or polishing the posterior surface of the second layer with a corrective prescription without removing or altering any portion of the first layer as taught by Goebel Quintana, for the purpose of producing a lens device with added utility and function ([0022]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein molding the first layer comprises injecting the mixture of the base material and dye(s) into a mold.
However Krieg-Kowald, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein molding the first layer comprises injecting the mixture of the base material and dye(s) into a mold ([0026], “The pellets and dye are mixed by tumbling the materials together. The pellet and dye mixture is then introduced into the feed hopper of an extrusion-molding machine wherein the mixture is melted and homogenized in the barrel of the molding machine. Finally, the molten material is extruded either through an extrusion die or into a mold to form the finished optical filter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein molding the first layer comprises injecting the mixture of the base material and dye(s) into a mold as taught by Krieg-Kowald, for the purpose of blocking laser radiation while preserving glare reduction ([0027]).
Claims 6-7, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyles (US 2023/0204982) in view of Krieg-Kowald (US 2009/0268157), further in view of Goebel Quintana (US 2019/0151152) and Saylor (US 2017/0075143).
Regarding claim 6, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first layer has a generally uniform thickness.
However Saylor, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the first layer has a generally uniform thickness ([0108], “the thickness can be considered substantially uniform”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein the first layer has a generally uniform thickness as taught by Saylor, for the purpose of not contributing to the power of the lens ([0108]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 6 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the first layer is between about 1.5 mm and about 2.0 mm.
However Saylor, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the thickness of the first layer is between about 1.5 mm and about 2.0 mm ([0125], “The thickness of the functional wafer system can be increased beyond 1.8 mm in some embodiments. For example, in some implementations, the functional wafer system can be up to 2.0 mm thick").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana and Saylor with the wherein the thickness of the first layer is between about 1.5 mm and about 2.0 mm as taught by Saylor, for the purpose of utilization in non-aesthetic applications ([0125]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second layer has a generally uniform unsurfaced or unpolished thickness.
However Saylor, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the second layer has a generally uniform unsurfaced or unpolished thickness ([0081], “The anterior surface and/or the posterior surface of the lenses 102a, 102b can conform to the surface of a right circular cylinder such that the radius of curvature along the horizontal axis is substantially uniform”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein the second layer has a generally uniform unsurfaced or unpolished thickness as taught by Saylor, for the purpose of providing lateral eye coverage ([0082]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the first layer is between about 1.5 mm and about 2.0 mm.
However Saylor, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the thickness of the first layer is between about 1.5 mm and about 2.0 mm ([0125], “The thickness of the functional wafer system can be increased beyond 1.8 mm in some embodiments. For example, in some implementations, the functional wafer system can be up to 2.0 mm thick").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana and Saylor with the wherein the thickness of the first layer is between about 1.5 mm and about 2.0 mm as taught by Saylor, for the purpose of utilization in non-aesthetic applications ([0125]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 18 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein co-molding the second layer comprises inserting the base material of the second layer into the same mold while the first layer remains therein so that the layers become integrally bonded.
However Saylor, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein co-molding the second layer comprises inserting the base material of the second layer (Fig. 3, “mold clear resin”) into the same mold while the first layer remains therein so that the layers become integrally bonded (Fig. 3, “onto concave surface of CE wafer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein co-molding the second layer comprises inserting the base material of the second layer into the same mold while the first layer remains therein so that the layers become integrally bonded as taught by Saylor, for the purpose of providing improved lens optical power and magnification characteristics ([0120]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyles (US 2023/0204982) in view of Krieg-Kowald (US 2009/0268157), further in view of Goebel Quintana (US 2019/0151152), Saylor (US 2017/0075143), and Buazza (US 2003/0075816).
Regarding claim 10, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the second layer is between about 6 mm and 10 mm.
However Buazza, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the thickness of the second layer is between about 6 mm and 10 mm ([0513], “Center thickness 9.0 mm, Edge thickness 9.0 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana and Saylor with the wherein the thickness of the second layer is between about 6 mm and 10 mm as taught by Buazza, for the purpose of improving the optical quality and stress characteristics of the lens ([0134]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyles (US 2023/0204982) in view of Krieg-Kowald (US 2009/0268157), further in view of Goebel Quintana (US 2019/0151152) and Buazza (US 2003/0075816).
Regarding claim 15, modified Boyles teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second layer has a non-polished or non-surfaced thickness of between about 6 mm and about 10 mm.
However Buazza, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens blank, teaches wherein the second layer has a non-polished or non-surfaced thickness of between about 6 mm and about 10 mm ([0513], “Center thickness 9.0 mm, Edge thickness 9.0 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the method of Boyles in view of Krieg-Kowald further in view of Goebel Quintana with the wherein the second layer has a non-polished or non-surfaced thickness of between about 6 mm and about 10 mm as taught by Buazza, for the purpose of improving the optical quality and stress characteristics of the lens ([0134]).
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 18 February 2026