DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks regarding the drawing objections are not persuasive. Regarding the imaging screen, such claimed element is not shown. While Applicant suggests that Figures 3, 5, 7, 8 implicitly includes the imaging screen, such remarks appear to corroborate Examiner’s position - i.e. the imaging screen itself is not in fact shown.
Regarding Applicant’s further remarks traversing the drawing objections as they pertain to whether such features are necessary for understanding and MPEP 608.02, Applicant’s representative appears to misunderstand MPEP 608.02, 35 USC 113, CFR 1.81, and CFR 1.83.
MPEP 608.02, along with 35 USC 113 and CFR 1.81, states that Applicant furnish drawings where necessary for understanding of the invention. This is a statement as to why Applicant is required to file drawings. 35 USC 113, and CFR 1.81 are not directed to the content or standards of those drawings once submitted.
CFR 1.83 (MPEP 608.02(d)) is directed to the content of those drawings; CFR 1.84 (MPEP 608.02.V) is directed to the standards of those drawings.
In the instant application Applicant has furnished the drawings under USC 113 and CFR 1.81, therefore Applicant acknowledges that drawings are in fact required for an understanding of the invention and has complied with 35 USC 113 and CFR 1.81.
What Applicant has not done is comply with CFR 1.83(a) as to the content of those drawings. CFR 1.83(a) also requires the illustration of convention features, albeit not necessarily detailed - e.g. box, graphical symbol, etc. In other words, even if the imaging screen is considered conventional, such claimed features are still required under CFR 1.83(a) to be illustrated in the drawing.
In the instant case, Applicant has not complied with CFR 1.83(a) because not all the claimed subject matter is shown in the drawings. Specifically, the claimed subject matter of claims 4 and 6 as discussed below.
Regarding Applicants remarks as they pertain to the USC 112(f) invocation, Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant has not pointed to any claimed structure, nor do the claims recite such structure, for the “imaging system” and the “analysis system” so as to fail prong C (MPEP 2181). Applicant’s remarks that “’imaging system’ is the name for a structure that performs the function of digitally acquiring images” is incorrect. There are many imaging systems which do not in fact acquire a digital image. A single lens is a structure that creates an image with no digital imaging required. The human eye is an imaging system that does not acquire a digital image.
Regardless of Applicant’s remarks, the claimed “imaging system configured to acquire a plurality of images” meets the 3-prong test as set forth in MPEP 2181 and thus invokes USC 112(f). Examiner reminds Applicant that [a]pplication of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d at 1194, 29 USPQ2d at 1850 (MPEP 2181.I).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a particular frame with a set of lines” (claim 1); “imaging screen” (claim 4); “plurality of displayed lines displayed on the imaging screen” (claim 4); “project multiple lines onto each segment” (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
a) an imaging system configured to acquire…in claim 1
b) an analysis system configured to analyze…in claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “project a particular frame with a set of lines…additional frames each additional frame with a set of lines with a greater number of lines than the set of lines of the particular frame” which is unclear regarding what is intended by “frame” and the number of lines associated with any one particular frame, or frames.
It is unclear what constitutes a “frame with a set of lines”. Is this an image projected by the projector? Is this a physical frame of some sort with lines? Frame of what? Applicant appears to be using the term inconsistent/contrary to their ordinary meaning (MPEP 2173.05(a)). The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what constitutes a “frame”.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand claim 1 such that so long as the art teaches projecting lines, such limitations are met.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the analysis system uses one or more additional images of the plurality of images other than the particular image of the plurality of images to improve an accuracy of the approximate shape” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Specifically, “improve an accuracy” is both relative and subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Improve how? The accuracy of the approximate shape is relative to what, when? The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand how to infringe what does, and does not, constitute an improvement to the accuracy of the approximate shape. Neither the claims nor specification provide an objective metric to determine what is an improvement to the accuracy of the approximate shape, or what is meant by accuracy of the approximate shape. Examiner will understand that so long as multiple images are used to approximate the 3D shape, such limitation is met.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “uses a particular image…to determine an approximate shape of the eye… uses one or more additional images…” which is unclear what is meant by the use (MPEP 2173.05(p).II). Used how? Such use is not a positively defined step. It is unclear because it is unknown whether infringement occurs when a system capable of using of the images is created, or when a user uses the images in operation of the system.
Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as multiple images are part of the 3D measurement, such limitations are met.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “focusing of the imaging system is achieved by projecting a plurality of projected lines onto the surface of the eye and aligning the plurality of projected lines with a plurality of displayed lines displayed on the imaging screen” which is unclear for the following reasons:
a) the limitation appears directed to the method steps of using the device (MPEP 2173.05(p)). Specifically, the method steps of alignment do not appear directed to the system (apparatus) but to the method of using the system to align the imaging system (e.g. camera 101). The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the imaging system is aligned via the claimed steps or other/different steps, does not appear to structurally differentiate the system from being aligned.
b) such language appears to be relative/subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, there does not appear to be any claimed or disclosed relationship between the imaging screen and the lines displayed thereof and the projected lines onto the surface of the eye. In other words, the arrangement between the projected lines and the screen lines appears to be arbitrary, thus what constitutes “aligning the plurality of lines” appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention.
Examiner will understand art having an imaging system of claim 1 imaging the eye is necessarily focused as per claim 4.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “positions of the plurality of displayed lines being configured such that light from the plurality of projected lines does not enter the pupil of the eye responsive to the system being in focus” is a function that does not appear to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, how such lines do not enter the pupil does not follow from any of the structure of the projector or imaging screen. The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the function requires some other structure, of if such function is implicit to operating the device.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the analysis system is configured to divide the image of the surface of the eye into a plurality of segments, and the projector is configured to project a single line onto each segment” which is unclear as to what constitutes a segment.
The segment(s) appears subjectively defined as arbitrarily shaped and sized to include some subjectively desired number of lines (MPEP 2173.05(b)). For instance, Applicant’s Figure 1 labels a segment as (107), however given the ambiguity of what is a segment, one of ordinary skill in the art can consider the image (106) can be have one segment with three (3) lines, or a first segment with one (1) line and a second segment with two (2) lines, or three segments each with one (1) line.
The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes a segment appears subjective to practitioner of the invention (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art images an image with at least one line, such system is necessarily “configured to” divide the image into a plurality of segments.
As to claim 6, the claim (last line) recites “onto each the segment” which is unclear. This appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests “onto each [[the]] segment”.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “the analysis system is configured to divide the image of the surface of the eye into a plurality of segments, and the projector is configured to project… a single line onto each segment” which is unclear as to what constitutes a segment.
The segment(s) appears subjectively defined as arbitrarily shaped and sized to include some subjectively desired number of lines (MPEP 2173.05(b)). For instance, Applicant’s Figure 1 labels a segment as (107), however given the ambiguity of what is a segment, one of ordinary skill in the art can consider the image (106) can be have one segment with three (3) lines, or a first segment with one (1) line and a second segment with two (2) lines, or three segments each with one (1) line.
Furthermore, if the projector is “configured to project…a single line onto each segment”, then what is meant by the analysis system dividing the image into the plurality of segments. Wouldn’t this necessitate the segments to be defined prior to the projection, not after and during the image analysis?
The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes a segment appears subjective to practitioner of the invention (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art images an image with at least one line, such system is necessarily “configured to” divide the image into a plurality of segments.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “focusing of the imaging system is achieved by projecting a plurality of projected lines…and aligning the plurality of projected lines with a plurality of displayed lines displayed on the imaging screen…” which appears to be prohibitive new matter. Applicant’s specification does not provide support for an alignment between projected lines on an eye and displayed lines on an imaging screen.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the analysis system is configured to divide the image of the surface of the eye into a plurality of segments” which appears to be prohibitive new matter. While Applicant cites to para. [0060]-[0061], such paragraphs do not specify it is the analysis system which divides the image into segments (107).
As to claim 6, the claim recites “the analysis system is configure to divide the image of the surface of the eye into a plurality of segments” which appears to be prohibitive new matter. While Applicant cites to para. [0060]-[0061], such paragraphs do not specify it is the analysis system which divides the image into segments (107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Rathjen (US 2007/0182927; of record).
As to claim 1, Rathjen teaches a system for measuring a three-dimensional map of an anterior surface of an eye (Rathjen Figs. 1-13), the system comprising
a projector configure to project one or more lines onto a surface of an eye (Rathjen Fig. 5 - 2, 10; para. [0036] - e.g. slit lamp projection);
an imaging system configured to acquire a plurality of images of the eye with the one or more projected lines (Rathjen Fig. 5 - 12A, 120; para. [0039], [0046]; Figs. 12a-13), the imaging system being aligned at an alignment angle relative to the projector (Rathjen Fig. 5 - 120, 10);
an analysis system configured to analyze the one or more images to determine a shape of the one or more projected lines and to generate a three-dimensional measurement of the eye based on the shape of the one or more projected lines in the plurality of images (Rathjen Fig. 1 - 13; Figs. 12a,b,13 - 30A, 31A, 32A; para. [0051]-[0052]; Fig. 11 - 17’; para. [0053]);
wherein the analysis system uses a particular image of the plurality of images to determine an approximate shape of the eye (Rathjen Fig. 12a - 30A; Fig. 12b - 4A; para. [0052], [0008]; Fig. 11 - 17’; para. [0053] - e.g. Scheimpflug cross section image generates 3D image of the eye or Placido image);
wherein the projector is configured to project a particular frame with a set of lines that is imaged in the particular image acquired by the imaging system (Rathjen Fig. 13 - 30A, 30B; para. [0051]-[0052]; Fig. 11 - 17’; para. [0053]);
wherein the analysis system uses one or more additional images of the plurality of images other than the particular image of the plurality of images to improve an accuracy of the approximate shape of the eye to generate the three-dimensional measurement of the eye (Rathjen Fig. 3 - 8; Fig. 11 - 17’; Fig. 13 - 30A, 30B; para. [0008], [0051]-[0053] - as discussed, the computer (analysis system) uses the cross-sectional image(s) to provide an approximate 3D measurement, the accuracy is improved by either the wavefront topography imaging and/or the pattern based (Placido ring 17’) imaging);
wherein the projector is configured to project a plurality of additional frames (Rathjen Fig. 11 - 17’) each additional frame with a set of lines with a greater number of lines than the set of liens of the particular frame (Rathjen Fig. 11 - 17’, 174; Fig. 13 - 30A, 30B - number of lines of the Placido ring being greater than one slit projected as (30A, 30B)), the plurality of additional frames being images in the one or more additional images of the plurality of images (Rathjen para. [0053]).
As to claim 2, Rathjen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Rathjen further teaches the projector is configured to project a series of projections in sequence (Rathjen Fig. 5 - 15, Z; para. [0048] - slit lamp rotated around illumination axis (Z) to sequentially project a series of slits on the eye (3)), each projection including a single line projected onto the surface of an eye at a different position from other projections of the series of projections (Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 30A, 4A; para. [0038]),
the imaging system is configured to acquire an image of the single line projected onto the surface of the eye for each projection of the series of projections resulting in a plurality of single line images (Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 30A, 4A; para. [0038], [0051], [0052]),
the analysis system is configured to analyze the plurality of single line images to generate the three-dimensional measurement of the eye (Rathjen Fig. 1 - 13; Figs. 12a,b,13 - 30A, 31A, 32A; para. [0051]-[0052]).
As to claim 3, Rathjen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Rathjen further teaches the projector is configured to project multiple lines onto the surface of the eye during the acquisition of each of the plurality of images (Rathjen Fig. 5 - 11, 15, Z; para. [0036], [0048] - slit lamp rotated around illumination axis (Z) to sequentially project a series of slits on the eye (3); Fig. 10 - 16; Fig. 12b - 36; para. [0040]).
As to claim 4 (as understood), Rathjen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Rathjen further teaches an imaging screen (Rathjen Fig. 11 - 17, 17’; para. [0048]), wherein focusing of the imaging system is achieved by projecting a plurality of projected lines onto the surface of the eye and aligning the plurality of projected lines with a plurality of displayed lines displayed on the imaging screen (Rathjen Fig. 11 - 174; para. [0048]), positions of the plurality of displayed lines being configured such that light from the plurality of projected lines does not enter the pupil of the eye responsive to the imaging system being in focus (Rathjen Fig. 11 - 174; para. [0048] - A visible pattern 17', a so-called placido pattern, for example with circular rings 174, is applied to the side of the shielding body 17 facing the eye 3, and is reflected by the surface of the eye 3).
As to claim 5 (as understood), Rathjen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Rathjen further teaches the imaging system is configured to acquire an image of the surface of the eye (Rathjen Figs. 11-13; para. [0051]-[0054]), the analysis system is configured to divide the image of the surface of the eye into a plurality of segments (Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 32A, 32B, 4A), and the projector is configured to project a single line onto each segment (Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 32A, 32B, 4A).
As to claim 6 (as understood), Rathjen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Rathjen further teaches the imaging system is configured to acquire an image of the surface of the eye (Rathjen Figs. 11-13; para. [0051]-[0054]), the analysis system is configured to divide the image of the surface of the eye into a plurality of segments (Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 32A, 32B, 4A), and the projector is configured to project, for a portion of the plurality of images acquired by the imaging system, a single line onto each segment (Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 32A, 32B, 4A), and for another portion of the plurality of images acquired by the imaging system, to project multiple lines onto each segment Rathjen Figs. 12a,b,13 - 32A, 32B, 4A; para. [0051]-[0050] - any one 3D image generated by the combined segments of line 4A; Fig. 11 - 174).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Catanzariti et al. (US 9,545,200; 2015/0131055); Sarver et al. (US 7,866,820; 2008/0018856); Warnicki et al. (US 4,995,716); Roberts (US 2008/0259276) are cited as additional examples of line projection on the eye for topography (3D) measurements.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights