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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023, 10/01/2024, and 07/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-18, in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/17/2025.
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 11-18 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 11 recites that “the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 8 mm wide.” However, it is unclear how “a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism lens through the near-vision reference point” should be defined to have “a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 8 mm wide.” Specifically, it is unclear if the “horizontal crosscut” should be defined in a horizontal dimension across the lens (e.g. from left to right), through the lens (e.g. from front to back) or if the “horizontal crosscut” is intended to be a section with a horizontal width of at least 8 mm. Furthermore, such a “crosscut” appears to be an arbitrary region and can be defined anywhere intersection the near-vision point.
Moreover, the term “broad maximum” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broad maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the “broad maximum” is referring to the width of the region that is at a maximum value or an amount of the maximum. Moreover, it is unclear how a maximum can be considered a “broad maximum” as it is unclear what would make such a maximum “broad.”
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require that the “horizontal crosscut” is at least 8 mm wide or that the “broad maximum” is at least 8 mm wide.
For the purposes of examination, any lens having a region of at least 8 mm surrounding the near-vision reference point on the surface of the lens such that the optical power of each point within the region is at least 85% of a maximum optical power of the entire contour prism progressive lens will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 12-18 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 12 similarly recites that “the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 10 mm wide.” It is unclear what constitutes a “a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism lens through the near-vision reference point” and the term “broad maximum” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broad maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require that the “horizontal crosscut” is at least 10 mm wide or that the “broad maximum” is at least 10 mm wide. As such, it is unclear how the lens is to be constructed.
For the purposes of examination, any lens having a region of at least 10 mm surrounding the near-vision reference point on the surface of the lens such that the optical power of each point within the region is at least 85% of a maximum optical power of the entire contour prism progressive lens will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 13 similarly recites that “the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 75% of its peak value is at least 10 mm wide.” It is unclear what constitutes a “a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism lens through the near-vision reference point” and the term “broad maximum” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broad maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, claim 13 depends upon claim 11 which defines that the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens “has a broad maximum where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value.” However, it is unclear how the “broad maximum” can be both “at least 85%” as in claim 11 and “at least 75%” in claim 13. Specifically, “at least 75%” is broader than the range “at least 85%” and it is unclear how such a limitation is to be interpreted. If the claim is redefining “broad maximum” to mean “at least 75%” instead of “at least 85%,” Examiner respectfully notes that such a claim would be an improper dependent claim, as claim 13 would be broader than claim 11. Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require that the “horizontal crosscut” is at least 10 mm wide or that the “broad maximum” is at least 10 mm wide. As such, it is unclear how the lens is to be constructed.
For the purposes of examination, any lens having a region of at least 10 mm surrounding the near-vision reference point on the surface of the lens such that the optical power of each point within the region is at least 75% of a maximum optical power of the entire contour prism progressive lens will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 similarly recites that “the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 75% of its peak value is at least 12 mm wide.” It is unclear what constitutes a “a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism lens through the near-vision reference point” and the term “broad maximum” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broad maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, claim 14 depends upon claim 11 which defines that the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens “has a broad maximum where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value.” However, it is unclear how the “broad maximum” can be both “at least 85%” as in claim 11 and “at least 75%” in claim 14. Specifically, “at least 75%” is broader than the range “at least 85%” and it is unclear how such a limitation is to be interpreted. If the claim is redefining “broad maximum” to mean “at least 75%” instead of “at least 85%,” Examiner respectfully notes that such a claim would be an improper dependent claim, as claim 14 would be broader than claim 11. Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require that the “horizontal crosscut” is at least 12 mm wide or that the “broad maximum” is at least 10 mm wide. As such, it is unclear how the lens is to be constructed.
For the purposes of examination, any lens having a region of at least 12 mm surrounding the near-vision reference point on the surface of the lens such that the optical power of each point within the region is at least 75% of a maximum optical power of the entire contour prism progressive lens will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites that “a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.1 diopter/mm over a region more than 5 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point.”
Similarly, claim 16 recites that “a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.1 diopter/mm over a region at least 7 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point.”
However, it is unclear what constitutes “a horizontal derivate.” Specifically, a “derivate” is not a term that is known in the art or defined by the specification or claims. Moreover, it is unclear what such a term is intended to refer to. If the “horizontal derivate” is intended to be a “horizontal derivative,” it is unclear if this is intended to be a derivative of the function of the optical power in a horizontal direction (e.g. a partial derivative, ∂y/∂P of P(x,y,z) where P(x,y,z) is the optical power and y is the horizontal direction), or some other horizontal component of the optical power. Furthermore, if the “horizontal derivative” is to be a partial derivative of the optical power, it is unclear how such a derivative can be calculated or determined as no function of the optical power has been provided. Further, it is unclear if the “horizontal crosscut” of claims 15-16 is intended to be the “horizontal crosscut” of claim 11 or an additional horizontal crosscut. Additionally, as there are no dimensions or structural features of the “horizontal crosscut,” it is unclear how such a region should be defined.
Furthermore, it is unclear how “a region more than 5 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point” or “a region more than 7 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point” should be defined as it is unclear which dimension the measurement is intended to be described.
For the purposes of examination, any optical power profile having an extremum (i.e. maximum or minimum) or having a slope less than 0.1 diopter/mm within at least 5 mm from the near-vision reference point will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention, as a partial derivative of a function being zero corresponds to an extremum of that function.
Claim 17 recites that “a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.05 diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point.”
Claim 18 recites that “a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.03 diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point.”
However, it is unclear what constitutes “a horizontal derivate.” Specifically, a “derivate” is not a term that is known in the art or defined by the specification or claims. Moreover, it is unclear what such a term is intended to refer to. If the “horizontal derivate” is intended to be a “horizontal derivative,” it is unclear if this is intended to be a derivative of the function of the optical power in a horizontal direction (e.g. a partial derivative, ∂y/∂P of P(x,y,z) where P(x,y,z) is the optical power and y is the horizontal direction), or some other horizontal component of the optical power. Furthermore, if the “horizontal derivative” is to be a partial derivative of the optical power, it is unclear how such a derivative can be calculated or determined as no function of the optical power has been provided. Further, it is unclear if the “horizontal crosscut” of claims 15-16 is intended to be the “horizontal crosscut” of claim 11 or an additional horizontal crosscut. Additionally, as there are no dimensions or structural features of the “horizontal crosscut,” it is unclear how such a region should be defined.
For the purposes of examination, any optical power profile having an extremum (i.e. maximum or minimum) or having a slope less than 0.05 (or 0.03 for claim 18) diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention, as a partial derivative of a function being zero corresponds to an extremum of that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozu (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0271108).
Regarding claim 11, Kozu teaches a contour prism progressive lens, having a position dependent optical power and a position dependent horizontal prism, and having a distance-vision reference point (220, 306) and a near-vision reference point (230, 308), the contour prism progressive lens being characterized by a coordinate system with its vertical axis running through the distance-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0130-0132, 0146-0148, 0156, 0181-0188, 0191-0194, 0232, 0345, 0348-0350, 0354, 0360-0362, 0383-0384, and 0390-0391), wherein:
the optical power at the near-vision power reference point exceeds the optical power at the distance-vision reference point by a value between 1.0 diopter and 2.5 diopters (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0188, 0191, 0232, 0348-0349, 0352-0353, 0361, 0383, and 0390, e.g. Paragraph 0191: “the surface average power for distance is set to +4.00D, the surface average power for near is set to +6.00D, and the addition power ADD is set to 2.00D”);
the horizontal prism on the vertical axis at a vertical coordinate of the near-vision reference point differs from the horizontal prism at the distance-vision reference point by more than 0.2 prism diopter base-in (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0115-0117, 0307, 0309, 0379-0380, and 0392-0393); and
the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 8 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0348-0350, 0354, 0361-0362, 0383-0384, 0390-0391, e.g. Paragraph 00354: “The near portion may be, for example, regions 310 and 410 within a range away by a predetermined distance on the upper side and the lower side in the vertical direction around the near reference points 308 and 408. The predetermined distance is, for example, a distance within the range of 2.5 to 4 mm” – the predetermined distance being in a range of 2.5 to 4 mm and 14 mm corridor provides a crosscut with a broad maximum of at least 8 mm, as shown in Figs. 9 and 14-15).
Regarding claim 12, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 10 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0348-0350, 0354, 0361-0362, 0383-0384, 0390-0391, e.g. Paragraph 00354: “The near portion may be, for example, regions 310 and 410 within a range away by a predetermined distance on the upper side and the lower side in the vertical direction around the near reference points 308 and 408. The predetermined distance is, for example, a distance within the range of 2.5 to 4 mm” – the predetermined distance being in a range of 2.5 to 4 mm and 14 mm corridor provides a crosscut with a broad maximum of at least 8 mm, as shown in Figs. 9 and 14-15).
Regarding claim 13, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 75% of its peak value is at least 10 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0348-0350, 0354, 0361-0362, 0383-0384, 0390-0391, e.g. Paragraph 00354: “The near portion may be, for example, regions 310 and 410 within a range away by a predetermined distance on the upper side and the lower side in the vertical direction around the near reference points 308 and 408. The predetermined distance is, for example, a distance within the range of 2.5 to 4 mm” – the predetermined distance being in a range of 2.5 to 4 mm and 14 mm corridor provides a crosscut with a broad maximum of at least 8 mm, as shown in Figs. 9 and 14-15).
Regarding claim 14, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 75% of its peak value is at least 12 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0348-0350, 0354, 0361-0362, 0383-0384, 0390-0391, e.g. Paragraph 00354: “The near portion may be, for example, regions 310 and 410 within a range away by a predetermined distance on the upper side and the lower side in the vertical direction around the near reference points 308 and 408. The predetermined distance is, for example, a distance within the range of 2.5 to 4 mm” – the predetermined distance being in a range of 2.5 to 4 mm and 14 mm corridor provides a crosscut with a broad maximum of at least 8 mm, as shown in Figs. 9 and 14-15).
Regarding claim 15, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.1 diopter/mm over a region more than 5 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0115-0117, 0307, 0309, 0379-0380, and 0392-0393).
Regarding claim 16, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.1 diopter/mm over a region at least 7 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0115-0117, 0307, 0309, 0379-0380, and 0392-0393).
Regarding claim 17, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.05 diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0115-0117, 0307, 0309, 0379-0380, and 0392-0393).
Regarding claim 18, Kozu teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kozu further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.03 diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 9, 15-18, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0115-0117, 0307, 0309, 0379-0380, and 0392-0393).
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaga et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2017/0351116; hereinafter – “Kaga”).
Regarding claim 11, Kaga teaches a contour prism progressive lens, having a position dependent optical power and a position dependent horizontal prism, and having a distance-vision reference point (F) and a near-vision reference point (N), the contour prism progressive lens being characterized by a coordinate system with its vertical axis running through the distance-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 3 and 15-27; Paragraphs 0010-0012, 0109, 0118-0120, 0123, and 0230), wherein:
the optical power at the near-vision power reference point exceeds the optical power at the distance-vision reference point by a value between 1.0 diopter and 2.5 diopters (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0113-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260 – See Kaga’s examples where the power difference is 2.0 diopter);
the horizontal prism on the vertical axis at a vertical coordinate of the near-vision reference point differs from the horizontal prism at the distance-vision reference point by more than 0.2 prism diopter base-in (See e.g. Figs. 9-33; Paragraphs 0109-0111 and 0230-0232); and
the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 8 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 12, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 85% of its peak value is at least 10 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 13, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 75% of its peak value is at least 10 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 14, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that the optical power along a horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point has a broad maximum where the region where the optical power is at least 75% of its peak value is at least 12 mm wide (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 15, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.1 diopter/mm over a region more than 5 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 16, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.1 diopter/mm over a region at least 7 mm long, comprising the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 17, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.05 diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Regarding claim 18, Kaga teaches the contour prism progressive lens of claim 11, as above.
Kaga further teaches that a magnitude of a horizontal derivative of the optical power along the horizontal crosscut of the contour prism progressive lens through the near-vision reference point is less than 0.03 diopter/mm at the near-vision reference point (See e.g. Figs. 15-33; Paragraphs 0032-0034, 0037-0039, 0042-0044, 0109-0115, 0119, 0137-0141, 0151-0155, 0230-0232, 0235, 0239, 0243, 0247-0249, 0254, 0257, and 0260).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaga et al. (U.S. PG-Pubs No. 2018/0004010 & 2017/0371181) teach spectacle lenses for binocular vision having similar optical power profiles and base-in prisms.
Carmon et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0253587) teaches quasi-progressive lenses for eyewear having a similar surface profile.
Kozu et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2013/0235336) teaches an eyeglass lens and design method having a similar power profile with horizontal prism.
Wietschorke (U.S. Patent No. 8,425,034) teaches a lens element with improved prismatic power having a similar power profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896