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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
For the sake of best practices of compact prosecution, the following is discussed to clarify a specie falling within the scope of the claim that may be unintended. Claim 47 recites “[a] lens system for an individual with anisometropia, the lens system comprising a pair of first and second lenses, being a pair of spectacles or contact lenses, for first and second eyes, respectively, of the individual … the second lens of said pair of lenses has an optical profile having … a single vision optical property profile having the second given individual prescription and no myopia controlling parameter and no myopia controlling power”. Examiner notes that the claims are neither drawn to a method of prescribing first and second lenses nor a method of providing first and second lenses nor a kit including first and second lenses. The claims are drawn to a lens system with no particular structure relating first and second lenses save for very general limitations that would have been understood as implied by the claimed optional limitation of “spectacles”. The claim captures a specie of the lens system embodied as a pair of contact lenses, one of which provides a myopia controlling power in a peripheral region and one being a single vision profile without a myopia controlling power. There is no claimed structure relating the pair of contact lenses of the lens system, but rather a function to treat a patient. This does not amount to structurally distinguishing the lens system over a prior art system used for other purposes. In other words, this specie is anticipated by disclosure of a single or pair lenses with myopia controlling power as there necessarily exists conventional lenses being single vision property lenses. This specie would be excluded if the claim were limited to spectacles having the claimed first and second lenses, for example.
For the sake of best practices of compact prosecution, the following is discussed to clarify a specie falling within the scope of the claim that may be unintended. Claim 47 recites “[a] lens system for an individual with anisometropia, the lens system comprising a pair of first and second lenses, being a pair of spectacles or contact lenses, for first and second eyes, respectively, of the individual … the second lens of said pair of lenses has an optical profile having … (i) a central optical zone having second given individual prescription power and a peripheral zone configured to provide at least one myopia controlling parameter having a second myopia controlling power lower than said first myopia controlling power”. Examiner notes that the claims are neither drawn to a method of prescribing first and second lenses nor a method of providing first and second lenses nor a kit including first and second lenses. The claims are drawn to a lens system with no particular structure relating first and second lenses save for very general limitations that would have been understood as implied by the claimed optional limitation of “spectacles”. The claim captures a specie of the lens system embodied as a pair of contact lenses, one having a myopia controlling power in a peripheral region and another having a different myopia controlling power. There is no claimed structure relating the pair of contact lenses of the lens system, but rather a function to treat a patient. This does not amount to structurally distinguishing the lens system over a prior art system used for other purposes. In other words, this specie is anticipated by disclosure of a pair of contact lenses having the claimed myopia controlling powers though worn at different times or by different individuals. This specie would be excluded if the claim were limited to spectacles having the claimed first and second lenses, for example.
Regarding claims 47-48 and 51, a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art apparatus on the basis of structure. Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or the purpose of that structure, Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. See In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gardiner, 171.F2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948).
Language in an apparatus claim directed to the function, operation, intent of use, and materials upon which these apparatus components work that does not structurally limit the apparatus components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus from an otherwise identical prior art apparatus will not support patentability. See, e.g. In re Rishoi, 107 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660,663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Limitations regarding determination of a difference between first and second myopia controlling powers and lenses “capable to control reduction of the existing amount of anisometropia of said individual” are directed to intended use, function, and/or operation of the “lens system” in claim 47. The limitation does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over an apparatus equivalently structures as Applicant notes that a difference in the first and second myopia controlling powers between the first lens and the second lens achieves the claimed result.
The burden shifts to the Applicant to rebut the presumption that the structure of the applied reference(s) is not capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
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 “the first myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the first lens, and, when present, the myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the second lens, provide at least one of the following effects: a myopic peripheral defocus providing additional peripheral power, peripheral blur, reduction of chromatic aberrations, visual cues, or reduction of retinal image contrast relative to an image contrast viewed through the central optical zone” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant’s Fig. 1 (reproduced below) provides a peripheral regions P1 and P2 with no particular structure or detail of that which provides the claimed effects. While Fig. 1 shows the claimed peripheral region, the figures do not depict embodiments of the myopia controlling power capable of the claimed function (i.e. a myopic peripheral defocus providing additional peripheral power, peripheral blur, reduction of chromatic aberrations, visual cues, or reduction of retinal image contrast relative to an image contrast viewed through the central optical zone). In the 4/28/2026 Remarks, Applicant argues these “optical effects products by and directly associate with the lens structure in the peripheral zones of the pair of lenses”. The35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below details the confusion about the claim language and this argument, but in summary it cannot be determined if Applicant contends that conventional ADD power, measured often in diopters, in the peripheral region of the lenses performs these claimed functions and operations or if there is a structure that does not merely correlate to ADD power. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand ADD power to possibly impact defocus, blur, and image contrast and necessarily impact chromatic aberration through the lens, but the claim explicitly extends to a “visual cue” effect that would not be understood as correlative to ADD power. No new matter should be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 48 is 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.
Claim 48 recites “the first myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the first lens, and, when present, the myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the second lens, provide at least one of the following effects: a myopic peripheral defocus providing additional peripheral power, peripheral blur, reduction of chromatic aberrations, visual cues, or reduction of retinal image contrast relative to an image contrast viewed through the central optical zone” in the context of the Claim 47 recitation “said difference between the first and second myopia controlling powers of the first and second lenses of the pair providing that the optical property profiles of the first and second lenses of the pair differentially affect myopia progression in the first and second eyes and therefore said first and second lenses in combination are capable to control reduction of the existing amount of anisometropia of said individual”. While Applicant has evidenced possession of a myopia controlling parameter embodied as “a myopic peripheral defocus parameter with additional peripheral power”, the disclosure does not provide in sufficient detail evidence of the remaining claimed embodiments of a myopia controlling parameter. In [0063], Applicant discloses “a specific and non-limiting example, the myopia controlling parameter is defined by the diopter power of the peripheral prescription” and “the myopia controlling parameter may include any parameter of an ophthalmic lens which is configured to affect and control myopia progression by way of, for example, myopic peripheral defocus by additional peripheral power, creating peripheral blur, affecting chromatic aberrations, creating visual cues and reducing retinal image contrast”. In other words, the scope of the claimed structure performing the structure is explicitly disclosed as only exemplified by a conventionally additional power in the peripheral region. The scope of the claim extends beyond that particular embodiment, to embodiments that have not been evidenced as possessed at the time of invention. As noted previously, Examiner acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Applicant to have evidences possession of providing an additional spherical power in a peripheral region relative to the spherical power in the central region in providing the claimed functionality and operation.
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 47-48, 51, and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 47 does not clearly limit the metes and bounds of the lens system between the various optional species implicitly and explicitly recited, as referenced above. Claim 47 recites “said difference between the first and second myopia controlling powers of the first and second lenses of the pair providing that the optical property profiles of the first and second lenses of the pair differentially affect myopia progression in the first and second eyes and therefore said first and second lenses in combination are capable to control reduction of the existing amount of anisometropia of said individual”. In the Specifications, Applicant states “[e]ach myopia controlling parameter may be characterized by its myopia controlling power that may vary between 0 (no myopia controlling power, e.g., a regular single vision lens) to 1 (maximum possible myopia controlling power), depending on the specific implementation of the selected myopia controlling parameter” ([0018]). Further in [0063], Applicant discloses “a specific and non-limiting example, the myopia controlling parameter is defined by the diopter power of the peripheral prescription” and “the myopia controlling parameter may include any parameter of an ophthalmic lens which is configured to affect and control myopia progression by way of, for example, myopic peripheral defocus by additional peripheral power, creating peripheral blur, affecting chromatic aberrations, creating visual cues and reducing retinal image contrast”. Claim language does not define a particular structure of the lenses as having a first myopia controlling power and a second myopia controlling power but rather encompasses any structure capable of performing the function and operation of myopia control. The metes and bounds of the claim would not have been clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art as the disclosure is deficient in clarifying the structure(s) corresponding to the scope. The one exemplary embodiment. Dependent Claims 48, 51, 67-68 are rejected as failing to cure the above-noted deficiencies.
Claim 47 recites “the second lens of said pair of lenses has an optical property profile having one of the following configurations: … (ii) a single vision optical property profile having the second given individual prescription and no myopia controlling parameter and no myopia controlling power; a difference between the first and second myopia controlling powers of the first and second lenses of the pair is determined in accordance with a desired amount of anisometropia to be obtained being lower than said existing amount of anisometropia defined by a difference between the first and second individual prescription powers of the first and second eyes, said difference between the first and second myopia controlling powers of the first and second lenses of the pair providing that the optical property profiles of the first and second lenses of the pair differentially affect myopia progression in the first and second eyes and therefore said first and second lenses in combination are capable to control reduction of the existing amount of anisometropia of said individual”. The claim simultaneously requires a difference between a first myopia controlling power and a second myopia controlling power of first and second lenses and optionally comprises a second lens having no second myopia controlling power. It is noted that the claimed difference is not grammatically structured as optional or contingent on the embodiment having a second myopia controlling power. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Dependent Claims 48, 51, 67-68 are rejected as failing to cure the above-noted deficiencies.
Claim 47 recites “a peripheral zone configured to provide at least one myopia controlling parameter having a first myopia controlling power” and “a peripheral zone configured to provide at least one myopia controlling parameter having a second myopia controlling power”. Claim 48 further specifies “the first myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the first lens … provide[s] at least one of the following effects …”. On Page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant states that [0018] of the application provides a definition for “myopia controlling power” that “does not refer to optical power in the conventional sense (diopters of convergence/divergence), but rather to the strength of magnitude”. In [0018], the originally-filed Specifications discloses “myopia controlling power of a myopia controlling parameter may be measured in Diopters, blur level, number, size and density of visual cues or any combination thereof”. The disclosure does not provide a special definition of “power” (nor “myopia controlling power”), but rather context and use of the phrase in describing the invention. For a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications, the claimed “myopia controlling power” is indefinite as the prosecution record muddles whether “power” is not a conventional optical power measured in diopters or may not be a conventional optical power measured in diopters. It is unclear if the 4/28/2026 Remarks are intended to serve as a disclaimer against a portion of that which is stated in the Specifications.
Related to the above issue, the metes and bounds of “myopia controlling parameter” and “myopia controlling power” would not be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specifications and claimed “no myopia controlling parameter and no myopia controlling power”. In [0018], Applicant states “Each myopia controlling parameter may be characterized by its myopia controlling power that may vary between 0 (no myopia controlling power, e.g., a regular single vision lens) to 1 (maximum possible myopia controlling power)”. So on a surface level, it is unclear what it is to provide a myopia controlling parameter having a myopia controlling power that is zero and thus no myopia controlling power. The Specifications explicitly provides guidance on interpretation of the range of myopia controlling powers as inclusive of zero and thus the claimed myopia controlling parameter having a first myopia controlling power or a second myopia controlling power does not clearly differentiate the range from the disclosed range, despite the claim alternatively providing an embodiment in which there is no myopia controlling parameter/power. Furthermore, Applicant explicitly discloses an embodiment in which anisometropia is reduced via use of a single vision lens (i.e. myopia controlling power of zero). This treatment of anisometropia necessitates that myopia has been controlled with the standard single vision lens having a myopia controlling power of zero. The disclosure does not specify whether myopia is controlled and mitigated for the eye having the first lens or the second lens in a scenario using a single vision lens, but myopia is controlled nonetheless. Referring to the second lens in the “ii” embodiment of Claim 47 as having “no myopia controlling parameter and no myopia controlling power” does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the invention. Taking, for example, a scenario in which the second lens if a standard single vision lens with an optical power, it would be unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art if infringement occurs by merely providing the optical power of the second lens if myopia is controlled by the single vision lens embodiment. Further examination on the merits is pre-empted. Dependent Claims 48, 51, 67-68 are rejected as failing to cure the above-noted deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent Claim 47 recites “a peripheral zone being configured to provide at least one myopia controlling parameter having a second selected myopia controlling power lower than said first selected myopia controlling power; or … no myopia controlling parameter and no myopia controlling power” and Claim 48 recites “the first myopia controlling power of the first lens is greater than the second myopia controlling power of the second lens”. Claim 48 only repeats that which is required in the independent Claim 47 and thus does not further limit the invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 47-48, 51, and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2017/0336653 to Bakaraju (hereinafter Bakaraju), properly incorporating US Pat. 7,025,460 to Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claims 47 and 51, Bakaraju discloses a lens system (Fig. 2A) for an individual with anisometropia, the lens system comprising a pair of first and second lenses (Fig. 2A; [0031]-[0035]), being a pair of spectacles or contact lenses, for first and second eyes, respectively, of the individual, wherein the first and second lenses are characterized by first and second given individual prescriptions for the first and second eyes (“a pair of lenses of a given prescription is to be worn for a prescribed time period”), defining an existing amount of anisometropia of the individual (“where “1L” refers to the first prescription for the left eye, and “1R” refers to the first prescription for the right eye”); the first lens of said pair of lenses has an optical property profile defining a central optical zone a first given individual prescription power of a corresponding the first eye and has a peripheral zone configured to provide at least one myopia controlling parameter having a first myopia controlling power the first myopia controlling power being greater than zero (“the first lens for the right eye and the second lens for the left eye may be configured to provide peripheral image points that are not focused on the retinas of the right and the left eyes in peripheral region outside the foveas of the right and left eyes, such that image points are disposed predetermined distances away from the retina and suitable lenses of this type may be configured as disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,025,460” in [0031]-[0035] and disclosed in Smith in col. 21, ln. 32-col. 22, ln. 2); the second lens of said pair of lenses has an optical property profile having one of the following configurations (i) a central optical zone having second given individual prescription power and a peripheral zone configured to provide at least one myopia controlling parameter having a second myopia controlling power lower than said first myopia controlling power (“the individual may initially alternate between wearing a first pair of lenses and wearing a second pair of lenses of the first set such that in both pairs of lenses a left lens may be used in proximity to a left eye to achieve emmetropia in the left eye while the right lens used in proximity of the right eye may affect the right eye to change shape over time in a manner that may inhibit myopia progression of the right eye”; [0034]); or (ii) a single vision optical property profile having the second given individual prescription and no myopia controlling parameter and no myopia controlling power (“the individual may initially alternate between wearing a first pair of lenses and wearing a second pair of lenses of the first set such that in both pairs of lenses a left lens may be used in proximity to a left eye to achieve emmetropia in the left eye while the right lens used in proximity of the right eye may affect the right eye to change shape over time in a manner that may inhibit myopia progression of the right eye”); a difference between the first and second myopia controlling powers of the first and second lenses of the pair is determined in accordance with a desired amount of anisometropia to be obtained being lower than said existing amount of anisometropia defined by a difference between the first and second individual prescription powers of the first and second eyes, said difference between the first and second myopia controlling powers of the first and second lenses of the pair providing that the optical property profiles of the first and second lenses in combination are capable to control anisometropia ([0032]-[0035] and Smith).
Regarding claim 48, Bakaraju disclose the first myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the first lens, and, when present, the myopia controlling power of the peripheral zone of the second lens, provide at least one of the following effects: a myopic peripheral defocus providing additional peripheral power, peripheral blur, reduction of chromatic aberrations, visual cues, or reduction of retinal image contrast relative to an image contrast view through the central optical zone ([0031]-[0035] and Smith col. 21, ln. 32-col. 22, ln. 2).
Regarding claim 67, Bakaraju discloses the myopia controlling parameter of the first lens comprises a myopic peripheral defocus providing a first additional peripheral power, and the myopia controlling parameter of the second lens, when present, comprises a myopic peripheral defocus providing a second additional peripheral power lower than the first additional peripheral power ([0031]-[0035] and Smith col. 21, ln. 32-col. 22, ln. 2).
Regarding claim 68, Bakaraju discloses the myopia controlling parameter of the first lens and, when present, the myopia controlling parameter of the second lens each comprises an optical feature providing reduced retinal image contrast relative to an image contrast viewed through the central optical zone, and wherein a peripheral contrast reduction of the first lens is greater than a peripheral contrast reduction of the second lens ([0031]-[0035] and Smith col. 21, ln. 32-col. 22, ln. 2). Defocus from a focused state necessarily reduces retinal image contrast.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on claim language previously presented.
On page 16 of the 4/28/2026 Remarks, Applicant argues taking into account the existing anisometropia condition of the individual’s eyes and providing an intended result “is not aspirational intended use, but defines the structural relationship between the two lenses of the pair as one configured to produce a differential myopia-progression effect”. Examiner respectfully disagrees on account of the indefiniteness issues addressed above. Applicant further argues that the structure is defined by a calibration to the amount of anisometropia, however the claim is not directed to a method of prescribing lenses to an individual nor treating anisometropia. Calibration of the lenses does not clearly distinguish the invention over a prior art apparatus that is identically structured, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above.
On page 19 of the Remarks, Applicant argues against Bakaraju as anticipating the claimed invention by noting the “technique” differences. Examiner maintains that the technique, approach, treatment method, etc. of Bakaraju is immaterial to the anticipation as the structures are identical.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights