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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 7/7/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and cancelled claims 4-5, 17-19.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/294,081 filed on 1/31/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 8, 12, 15 and 18 has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been overcome.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (CN 112578578A, hereinafter, “Xie”).
Regarding claim 6, Xie discloses (reference paragraph numbers refer to the English translation and reference figure numbers refer to the original) a spectacle lens that exhibits the effect of suppressing the progression of myopia or hyperopia (Fig. 1, [0028], [n0025]), comprising:
a central clear area 12 that is an area including an eye point O and allows a light beam entering from an object-side surface to exit from an eyeball-side surface, enter into a wearer's pupil, and converge on a retina, wherein the eye point is the position where a line of sight passes when facing straight ahead when wearing the spectacle lens (Fig. 1, [n0011], [n0024]-[n0026]); and
a functional area 11 that is an annular area surrounding the central clear area 12, and that includes a base area that achieves a prescribed refractive power and a portion that is shaped so that the light beam entering into the wearer's pupil does not converge on the retina (Fig. 1, [n0025]-[n0026], area 11 is a defocus area, and its dimension changes by changing r2-r4. This implies that there is an area (base), for example, the upper area 11, which has a low defocus and an area portion, for example, the lower area 11, that has a high defocus. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, a low defocus function represents a prescribed refractive power. Light passing through portions of the lower area does not converge on the retina), wherein
in planar view, the central clear area extends horizontally toward a nose more than toward an ear when viewed from the eye point (Fig. 1, [n0025], central area is asymmetrical, r4 is longer than r2).
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 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie.
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a spectacle lens that exhibits the effect of suppressing the progression of myopia or hyperopia (Fig. 1, [0028], [n0025]), comprising:
a central clear area 12 that is an area including an eye point O and allows a light beam entering from an object-side surface to exit from an eyeball-side surface, enter into a wearer's pupil, and converge on a retina, wherein the eye point is the position where a line of sight passes when facing straight ahead when wearing the spectacle lens (Fig. 1, [n0011], [n0024]-[n0026]); and
a functional area 11 that is an annular area surrounding the central clear area, and that includes a base area that achieves a prescribed refractive power and a portion that is shaped so that the light beam entering into the wearer's pupil does not converge on the retina (Fig. 1, [n0025]-[n0026], area 11 is a defocus area, and its dimension changes by changing r2-r4. This implies that there is an area (base), for example, the upper area 11, which has a low defocus and an area portion, for example, the lower area 11, that has a high defocus. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, a low defocus function represents a prescribed refractive power. Light passing through portions of the lower area does not converge on the retina);
wherein in planar view, a maximum width of a rectangular portion in a horizontal direction, which is a portion within the central clear area, is larger from the eye point toward a nose than from the eye point toward an ear (Fig. 1, [n0025], [n0026]. The clear area is asymmetric, i.e., the maximum width of a rectangular portion in the horizontal direction is larger from the eyepoint to the nose than the width size from the eyepoint to the ear, as seen in Fig. 1).
Xie does not disclose the range size (i.e., d mm above and d mm below the horizontal line) of the rectangular portion, where the above asymmetry occurs, that is, Xie does not disclose d is at least one value in a range of 1.00 to 2.00.
Xie discloses that the width of the central clear area 12 is 8-22 mm and the size of the peripheral area is 18-32 mm ([0028]). Based on Fig. 1, there is a rectangular portion in the central clear area that has a height of d mm, where d>0 mm.
The parameter d, i.e., the parameter affecting the size of the central clear area is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, ensuring the use of the eye’s visual area ([0028] in Xie).
Xie discloses the claimed invention except for the value of the parameter d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the parameter d lies in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the size of the central clear area of the lens is an art recognized result-effective variable as it affects the optical effect of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the size of the central clear area 12 because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 2, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 1, wherein d is 1.50 (see claim 1 above, where Xi discloses d is between 1.0 and 2.0).
Regarding claim 3, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 1.
Xie does not disclose wherein the maximum width of the rectangular portion from the eye point toward the nose in the horizontal direction is 3.60 mm or more.
Xie discloses that the width r2 + r4 of the central clear area 12 is 8-22 mm and shows a length r4 of the rectangular potion from the eye point to the nose in the horizontal direction, i.e., Xie discloses a range for r4 (Fig. 1, [n0028]).
Here, the claimed range for the width of the rectangular portion from the eye to the nose overlaps with the range for the width r4 disclosed by Xie. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the distance r4 lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of achieving a desired optical effect, i.e., larger eye’s visual area (see [n0028] in Xie).
Regarding claim 8, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 1.
Xie does not disclose wherein the functional area does not allow 30% or more of the light beam entering into the wearer's pupil to converge on the retina.
Xie discloses that the functional area 11 defocuses the incident light, i.e., does not allow some light entering into the pupil to converge on to the retina, said amount being more than 0% ([n0025]). Moreover, Xie discloses particulars of the functional/defocus area ([n0029]-[n0033]).
The parameter of the amount of defocused light is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, avoiding visual blurring and delaying and controlling the progression of myopia ([n0028] in Xie).
Xie discloses the claimed invention except for the value of the amount of the defocused light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the amount of defocused light lies in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the amount of the defocused light is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the optical effect of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of the defocused light because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 10, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 2.
Xie does not disclose wherein the maximum width of the rectangular portion from the eye point toward the nose in the horizontal direction is 3.60 mm or more.
Xie discloses that the width r2 + r4 of the central clear area 12 is 8-22 mm and shows the length r4 of the rectangular potion from the eye point to the nose in the horizontal direction, i.e., Xie discloses a range for r4 (Fig. 1, [n0028]).
Here, the claimed range for the width of the rectangular portion from the eye to the nose overlaps with the range for the width r4 disclosed by Xie. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the distance r4 lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of achieving a desired optical effect, i.e., larger eye’s visual area (see [n0028] in Xie).
Regarding claim 12, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 2.
Xie does not disclose wherein the functional area does not allow 30% or more of the light beam entering into the wearer's pupil to converged on the retina.
Xie discloses that the functional area 11 defocuses the incident light, i.e., does not allow some light entering into the pupil to converge on to the retina, said amount being more than 0% ([n0025]). Moreover, Xie discloses particulars of the functional/defocus area ([n0029]-[n0033]).
The parameter of the amount of defocused light is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, avoiding visual blurring and delaying and controlling the progression of myopia ([n0028] in Xie).
Xie discloses the claimed invention except for the value of the amount of the defocused light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the amount of defocused light lies in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the amount of the defocused light is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the optical effect of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of the defocused light because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 15, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 3.
Xie does not disclose wherein the functional area does not allow 30% or more of the light beam entering into the wearer's pupil to converge on the retina.
Xie discloses that the functional area 11 defocuses the incident light, i.e., does not allow some light entering into the pupil to converge on to the retina, said amount being more than 0% ([n0025]). Moreover, Xie discloses particulars of the functional/defocus area ([n0029]-[n0033]).
The parameter of the amount of defocused light is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, avoiding visual blurring and delaying and controlling the progression of myopia ([n0028] in Xie).
Xie discloses the claimed invention except for the value of the amount of the defocused light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the amount of defocused light lies in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the amount of the defocused light is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the optical effect of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of the defocused light because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claims 7, 11, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Guillot et al. (US 2020/0393702, hereinafter, “Guillot”).
Regarding claim 7, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 1.
Xie does not disclose comprising: an outer clear area, which is an area in contact with the functional area on an outside edge side of the spectacle lens, and which allows the light beam entering from the object-side surface to exit from the eyeball-side surface, enter into the wearer's pupil and converge on the retina.
Guillot discloses a lens 10 comprising a central clear refractive area 12, corrective functional areas 14 and an outer clear refractive area 12 (i.e., allowing light beam to enter into the pupil and converge on to retina), the outer clear area in contact with the functional area and being on an outside edge side of the lens (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Both Xie and Guillot disclose ophthalmic lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the lens includes a second clear refractive area surrounding the functional area, as taught by Guillot, for improving the corrective capabilities of the lens.
Regarding claim 11, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 2.
Xie does not disclose comprising: an outer clear area, which is an area in contact with the functional area on an outside edge side of the spectacle lens, and which allows the light beam entering from the object-side surface to exit from the eyeball-side surface, enter into the wearer's pupil and converge on the retina.
Guillot discloses a lens 10 comprising a central clear refractive area 12, corrective functional areas 14 and an outer clear refractive area 12 (i.e., allowing light beam to enter into the pupil and converge on to retina), the outer clear area in contact with the functional area and being on an outside edge side of the lens (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Both Xie and Guillot disclose ophthalmic lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the lens includes a second clear refractive area surrounding the functional area, as taught by Guillot, for improving the corrective capabilities of the lens.
Regarding claim 14, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 3.
Xie does not disclose comprising: an outer clear area, which is an area in contact with the functional area on an outside edge side of the spectacle lens, and which allows the light beam entering from the object-side surface to exit from the eyeball-side surface, enter into the wearer's pupil and converge on the retina.
Guillot discloses a lens 10 comprising a central clear refractive area 12, corrective functional areas 14 and an outer clear refractive area 12 (i.e., allowing light beam to enter into the pupil and converge on to retina), the outer clear area in contact with the functional area and being on an outside edge side of the lens (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Both Xie and Guillot disclose ophthalmic lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the lens includes a second clear refractive area surrounding the functional area, as taught by Guillot, for improving the corrective capabilities of the lens.
Regarding claim 20, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 6.
Xie does not disclose comprising: an outer clear area, which is an area in contact with the functional area on an outside edge side of the spectacle lens, and which allows the light beam entering from the object-side surface to exit from the eyeball-side surface, enter into the wearer's pupil and converge on the retina.
Guillot discloses a lens 10 comprising a central clear refractive area 12, corrective functional areas 14 and an outer clear refractive area 12 (i.e., allowing light beam to enter into the pupil and converge on to retina), the outer clear area in contact with the functional area and being on an outside edge side of the lens (Fig. 8, [0073]).
Both Xie and Guillot disclose ophthalmic lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the lens includes a second clear refractive area surrounding the functional area, as taught by Guillot, for improving the corrective capabilities of the lens.
Claims 9, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Tse et al. (US 2015/0109574, hereinafter, “Tse”)
Regarding claim 9, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 1.
Xie does not disclose in planar view, the central clear area has a size that fits within a circle with a diameter of 10.00 mm centered on the eye point.
Tse discloses an ophthalmic lens 19 comprising a clear refractive zone 22 and a surrounding functional zone 23. The diameter of the central zone is 2.0 to 4.5 m (Fig. 2A, [0077], claim 38).
Both Xie and Tse disclose ophthalmic lenses.
Here, the claimed range for the diameter overlaps with the range for the diameter disclosed by Tse. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the diameter of the central clear area lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of achieving a desired optical effect, i.e., larger eye’s visual area.
Regarding claim 13, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 2.
Xie does not disclose in planar view, the central clear area has a size that fits within a circle with a diameter of 10.00 mm centered on the eye point.
Tse discloses an ophthalmic lens 19 comprising a clear refractive zone 22 and a surrounding functional zone 23. The diameter of the central zone is 2.0 to 4.5 m (Fig. 2, [0077]], claim 38).
Both Xie and Tse disclose ophthalmic lenses.
Here, the claimed range for the diameter overlaps with the range for the diameter disclosed by Tse. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the diameter of the central clear area lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of achieving a desired optical effect, i.e., larger eye’s visual area.
Regarding claim 16, Xie discloses the spectacle lens according to claim 3.
Xie does not disclose in planar view, the central clear area has a size that fits within a circle with a diameter of 10.00 mm centered on the eye point.
Tse discloses an ophthalmic lens 19 comprising a clear refractive zone 22 and a surrounding functional zone 23. The diameter of the central zone is 2.0 to 4.5 m (Fig. 2, [0077]], claim 38).
Both Xie and Tse disclose ophthalmic lenses.
Here, the claimed range for the diameter overlaps with the range for the diameter disclosed by Tse. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Xie so that the diameter of the central clear area lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of achieving a desired optical effect, i.e., larger eye’s visual area.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 Applicant stated “Xie does not disclose that the peripheral defocus visual area also includes a base area that achieves a prescribed refractive power in addition to the defocus zones, as recited by each of claims 1 and 6.”, see p. 7 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. As discussed above, Xie discloses a defocus area which has various portions with varying amounts of defocus. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, an amount of defocus represents a prescribed refractive power and also it represents light not entering the retina. Applicant is recommended to specify the exact function of the base area of the functional area.
In addition, Applicant stated “Xie only discloses that the top, bottom, left, and right dimensions of the clear area will be changed, but an ear side and a nose side are not mentioned. Additionally, the clear area in Xie has a symmetrical shape relative to the optical center. See id. at Fig. 1. This is in contrast to claim 1, in which a maximum width of a rectangular portion that still fits inside the central clear area is larger from the eye point toward a nose than from the eye point toward an ear. Similarly, the symmetrical shape of Xie is in contrast to claim 6, which recites that, in the planar view, the central clear area extends horizontally toward a nose more than toward an ear when viewed from the eye point. Thus, the clear area according to the present claims has an asymmetrical shape that is larger towards the nose than towards the ear. Xie does not teach or suggest this claim feature”, see pages 7-8 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Fig. 1 of Xie shows the clear area 12 being non-symmetrical around O. Moreover, since r4 > r2 the clear area has an asymmetrical shape that is larger towards the nose (right) than towards the ear (left).
The rejection of claims 1, 6 and their dependents is maintained.
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights