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 .
The submission filed March 30, 2026 in response to the office action mailed December 29, 2025 is under examination. Claims 1-20 are amended and pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first lays out the status of the claims. No argument is made in this portion.
From page 5 of 10 through line 8 of page 6 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes portions of the rejection of claim 1 and notes that the Applicant disagrees that claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-16 are anticipated by Lin. No argument is made in this portion.
From line 9 of page 6 of 10 through line 4 of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the examiner’s tabulation of positive and negative deviations is double-counting the number of actual deviations as a function of radius. This is a distinction without a difference. All of the tabulated points were included to demonstrate that this behavior is happening on both sides of the central zone. Even if one is counting the number of positive and negative deviations only on one side, there are still multiple positive deviations and negative deviations.
In line 5 of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to clarify the claimed subject matter. These clarifying amendments are subtle but non-trivial. The amendment in line 7 of claim 1 “having positive deviations and negative deviations” is a significant change in scope. Previously the total number of positive and negative deviations needed to be two or more. Now, there must be two or more positive deviations and two or more negative deviations. The amendment in lines 7-8 of claim 1 “the positive deviations and negative deviations alternating as a function of radial position” is also a significant change in scope. Previously all points that positively deviated from the running average could be individually considered to be positive deviations, whereas now positive deviations must be separated from one another by a negative deviation to qualify. Many of applicant’s arguments that follow are commensurate with these changes. However, in light of these non-trivial amendments, the rejection of the claims has been correspondingly updated.
In lines 6-11 of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points out that points [3.4, -1.00], [3.6,4.00], [3.8, 3.00] that were previously all relied upon individually as positive deviations, now must be considered to all be part of a single positive deviation. The examiner agrees, now that the positive deviations and negative deviations need to be alternating, the rejection can no longer rely upon them as representing different positive deviations. In light of this amendment, the rejection below has changed the arbitrary position delimiting between the claimed second region and the claimed peripheral zone to be between 2.4 and 2.6 mm. Under this re-analysis, there is one positive [2.4, -5.5] and one negative deviation [2.2, -6.5], for a total of two deviations in the second region, and three positive [2.6,-4.50], [3.0,-4.00] and [3.6,4.00] and three negative [2.8,-7.00],[3.2,-7.50], [4.0,2.00] deviations in the peripheral zone.
From line 12 of page 7 of 10 through line 2 of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that because paragraph [0014] of the instant specification discloses “The term “average optical power” is to be understood as being analogous to a DC-component of the optical power as function of radius if optical power as function of radius were considered as an electrical signal; and the variations in optical power are to be understood as being analogous to a AC-component of the optical power as function of radius.” that the calculation of an average power must be computed as an integral over one period as taught by the Guide to Electronic Measurements and Laboratory Practice, by S. Wolf (1983). This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
First, paragraph [0014] merely teaches that the average power is analogous to the DC component of an electrical signal. This is not even close to being a specific definition of the term “average optical power” requiring an integration over 1 period. Secondly, claim 1 does not recite that the positive and negative deviations occur at a constant period. This is important, because the power function of Lin is not strictly periodic. Thus, even if claim 1 were amended to positively recite a specific calculation method for the average optical power, any calculation method based on the teachings of Wolf must make some reasonable, but arbitrary, choices regarding what radii should be included within the integration interval or period for any point along the function. Thus, the examiner’s provided examples from which an average can be calculated illustrate that which is self-evident from the figure, namely that the average optical power in the peripheral region does increase from the first optical power.
In lines 3-14 of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant presents their interpretation of the functional form of the average optical power in the region from 2.2 mm to 4.0 mm in Lin Fig. 20 and Table 24. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Counsel's assertion that the average optical power is not increasing until radii outside of 3.2 mm after the dioptric power exceeds -6.0 is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c). In particular, although the applicant is arguing that a particular calculation method is required, the applicant did provide an affidavit or declaration containing the method by which the applicant arrived at these deductions. Even using integration rather than a running average to determine the average, the values found will still depend on the period over which the function is integrated. As noted above, calculating Lin’s average in an analogous manner to the DC component, still has room for interpretation.
In lines 15-22 of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that because the average optical power is not increasing as a function of radius until a radius of about 3.3 mm, Lin fails to teach a plurality of positive deviations alternating with a plurality of negative deviations in the peripheral zone. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the inner radius of the peripheral zone is defined by the point at which the average optical power increases monotonically from the first optical power) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As currently written, claim 1 only requires the presence of an increasing average optical power from the first optical power within the peripheral zone, not that the inner radius of the peripheral zone is defined by the point at which the average optical power begins to increase from the first optical power.
In the last four lines of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-16 are patentable over Lin for at least the above reasons. These underlying arguments have been addressed above.
In lines 1-5 of page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that claims 8 and 17-18 are patentable over Lin for at least the same reasons as claim 1. These underlying arguments have been addressed above.
In lines 6-12 of page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Hovinga does not overcome the deficiencies of Lin with respect to claim 1, and thus that claims 9, 12 and 19-20 are patentable over the combination of Lin and Hovinga. This argument is moot, because Hovinga is not relied upon for any of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 “the substantially first optical power” neither matches the first recitation of “a substantially constant first optical power” nor eliminates both adjective prior to “first optical power” and thus does not really make sense. It is assumed that the applicant intended to delete both adjectives. Thus, the examiner recommends either reinserting “constant” or deleting “substantially”. Appropriate correction is required. No indefiniteness issue is raised by this merely awkward phrasing.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. US 2018/0373059 A1 (hereafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches (16th example, Fig. 20, Table 24) “An ophthalmic lens (the contact lens of the 16th example), comprising:
a central zone (the zone within 3 mm of the center in Fig. 20 and Table 24) having a first region (the region within 2 mm of the center in Fig. 20 and Table 24) characterized by a substantially constant first optical power (see Fig. 20 and Table 24 the diopter within 2 mm of the center is a constant value of -6.00) and a second region (the region between 2 and 2.4 mm from the center in Fig. 20 and Table 24) disposed radially outward of the first region (the second region is radially outward with radial positions of 2-2.4 mm of the first region that is within 2 mm) having positive and negative deviations in power as a function of radial position (e.g. Table 24 [radius, diopter] pair [2.4,-5.50] which is a positive deviation and [radius, diopter] pair [2.2,-6.50] which is a negative deviation. Note that this is one positive and one negative deviation, and thus positive and negative deviations plural.), relative to the substantially constant first power (each of these deviation is relative to the constant first power of -6.00 diopters); and
a peripheral zone (the zone between 2.4 and 4 mm from the center in Fig. 20 and Table 24) disposed radially outward of the central zone (the peripheral zone is radially outward with radial positions of 2.4-4 mm of the central zone that is within 3 mm), the peripheral zone having positive deviations (e.g. Table 24 [radius, diopter] pairs of [2.6,-4.50], [3.0,-4.00] and [3.6,4.00] are the peaks of the positive deviations.) and negative deviations (e.g. Table 24 [radius, diopter] pairs of [2.8,-7.00],[3.2,-7.50], [4.0,2.00] are the bottoms of the negative deviations), relative to an average optical power (these are positive and negative deviations relative to a running average of the optical power) as a function of radial position (see Fig. 20 and Table 24), the average optical power increasing as a function of radius from the substantially first optical power (as admitted by the applicant in lines 15-18 of page 8 of 10 of the remarks filed March 30, 2026, the average optical power that is increasing as a function of radius relative to the first optical power in at least its outermost portion, such as beyond 3.3 mm. Note that claim 1 only requires the presence of an increasing average optical power from the first optical power within the peripheral zone, not that the inner radius of the peripheral zone is defined by the point at which the average optical power begins to increase from the first optical power.).”
Note that the average optical power could be calculated in any of a number of ways, such as a 3-point running average, a 4 point-running average or an integration over some moving window. As noted in the previous office action the peripheral zone includes a portion where the 3-point running average and the 4-point running average calculated from the data in Table 24 are both increasing:
3-point running average: [3.2,-4.167], [3.4, -1.5], [3.6, 2.0], [3.8,3.0], [4.0,2.5].
4-point running average: [3.5,-0.375],[3.7,2.0].
Given that no analytical functional form for the power was given in Lin, actually integrating the average optical power over a moving window would be slightly difficult, but as admitted by applicant such a calculation would still yield an increasing average optical power in the outer portion of the peripheral zone, see lines 15-18 of page 8 of 10 of the remarks filed March 30, 2026.
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the substantially constant first optical power of the first region, the positive and negative deviations of the second region as a function of radius, and the positive deviations and negative deviations of peripheral zone constitute a power profile (the power profile of Fig. 20 and Table 24), and
wherein the power profile has no discontinuities in power (Fig. 20 depicts a continuous power profile with no discontinuities).”
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the diameter of the central zone is at least 2mm (see Fig. 20 and Table 24 the central zone diameter is 6 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the diameter of the central zone is at least 3mm (see Fig. 20 and Table 24 the central zone diameter is 6 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the central zone and the peripheral zone are rotationally symmetric (see Fig. 1 and e.g. paragraph [0173]: “The annular region symmetrically surrounds the central region. The peripheral region symmetrically surrounds the annular region.”).”
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the lens is contact lens (e.g. paragraph [0173]: “contact lens”).”
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the positive deviations and negative deviations in power of at least one of the second region and the peripheral zone is periodic as a function of radius (between 2.4 mm and 3.2 mm from the center, the peaks and valleys are periodically spaced in intervals of 0.2mm, see Table 24. These periodic positive and negative deviations of power are in parts of both the second region and the peripheral zone).”
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the average optical power in the peripheral zone increases linearly (the 4-point running average within the peripheral zone has only two points. Since two points define a line, the average optical power over a 4-point running average increases linearly.).”
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1, wherein the positive deviations and the negative deviations in the peripheral zone have an amplitude in the range of 0.5 - 12.0 diopters (One can calculate the positive and negative deviations from the running averages within the peripheral zone using the values above. For the 3-point running average the amplitude of deviations are [radius, diopter]: [±3.2,3.33],[ ±3.4,3.33],[ ±3.6,2.0],[ ±4.0,1.0]. These are in the range of 0.5 to 3.33 diopters which is in the claimed range. If the average at each point is determined by the linear function based off of the 4 point running averages above, then the amplitude at each point can be calculated as given in the table below:
radius
diopter
linear average
amplitude
±3.2
-7.5
-3.9375
3.5625
±3.4
-1
-1.5625
0.5625
±3.6
4
0.8125
3.1875
±3.8
3
3.1875
0.1875
±4.0
2
5.5625
3.5625
where the linear function based off of the data points [r,d] of [3.5,-0.375],[3.7,2] is d=11.875r-41.9375. Thus, the amplitude of the deviations includes values between 0.5 and 3.5625 which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 2, wherein the lens is contact lens (e.g. paragraph [0173]: “contact lens”).”
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 13, wherein the central zone and the peripheral zone are rotationally symmetric (see Fig. 1 and e.g. paragraph [0173]: “The annular region symmetrically surrounds the central region. The peripheral region symmetrically surrounds the annular region.”).”
Regarding claim 15, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 14, wherein the diameter of the central zone is at least 2mm (see Fig. 20 and Table 24 the central zone diameter is 6 mm which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 16, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 15, wherein the positive deviations and negative deviations in power of at least one of the second region and the peripheral zone is periodic as a function of radius (between 2.4 mm and 3.2 mm from the center, the peaks and valleys are periodically spaced in intervals of 0.2mm, see Table 24. These periodic positive and negative deviations of power are in parts of both the second region and the peripheral zone).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US 2018/0373059 A1 (hereafter Lin).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lin teaches the lens of claims 1 and 16, however, Lin fails to explicitly teach “wherein the area above the constant first power and the average power that is encompassed by the positive deviations is less than 20% different than the area below the constant first power and the average power that is encompassed by the negative deviations.”
However, since Lin teaches a continuous power function, the demarcation between the second region and the peripheral zone is arbitrary. Thus the portion which should be measured against the first power, and the portion that should be measured against the average power is also arbitrary.
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
The instant claims and the prior art differ by the recitation of a relative dimension, the area encompassed by the positive deviations relative to the area encompassed by the negative deviations being within 20% of one another. The prior art and the instant claim do not perform differently from one another.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the boundary between the second region and the peripheral zone such that the relative areas are within 20% of one another, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Regarding claim 18, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 17, wherein the positive deviations and the negative deviations in the peripheral zone have an amplitude in the range of 0.5 - 12.0 diopters (One can calculate the positive and negative deviations from the running averages within the peripheral zone using the values above. For the 3-point running average the amplitude of deviations are [radius, diopter]: [±3.2,3.33],[ ±3.4,3.33],[ ±3.6,2.0],[ ±4.0,1.0]. These are in the range of 0.5 to 3.33 diopters which is in the claimed range. If the average at each point is determined by the linear function based off of the 4 point running averages above, then the amplitude at each point can be calculated as given in the table below:
radius
diopter
linear average
amplitude
±3.2
-7.5
-3.9375
3.5625
±3.4
-1
-1.5625
0.5625
±3.6
4
0.8125
3.1875
±3.8
3
3.1875
0.1875
±4.0
2
5.5625
3.5625
where the linear function based off of the data points [r,d] of [3.5,-0.375],[3.7,2] is d=11.875r - 41.9375. Thus, the amplitude of the deviations includes values between 0.5 and 3.5625 which are in the claimed range).”
Claims 9, 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US 2018/0373059 A1 (hereafter Lin) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Hovinga et al. US 2022/0137432 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Hovinga).
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches “The lens of claim 1,” however, Lin example 16 fails to explicitly teach “wherein the deviation amplitude relative to the average optical power of the peripheral zone is equal to the deviation amplitude relative to the substantially constant first power in the second region.”
Lin Fig. 14, Table 6, 5th example teaches a lens where the amplitude of deviations is constant in the second region (from 1.5 mm to 3 mm) and the peripheral zone (3 mm to 4 mm).
Hovinga teaches (claim 1) “An ophthalmic lens (ophthalmic lens 100), comprising:
a central zone (central optical zine 110) … characterized by a substantially constant first optical power (e.g. paragraph [0036]: “the central zone may have only a single power” or Fig. 2A,2C -3.0 diopters) … and
a peripheral zone (peripheral zone 120, 220, 230) disposed radially outward of the central zone (see Figs. 1 and 2A,2C), the peripheral zone having positive and negative deviations as a function of radial position (see Figs. 2A, 2C and e.g. paragraph [0044]: “A radial power profile of the peripheral zone can have any of a variety of shapes comprising maxima and minima.”), relative to an average optical power (paragraph [0045]: “The base power in the peripheral zone … may vary (increase… ) in the radial direction with the spatial modulation causing offsets from the base power at a given location.”) from the substantially constant first optical power (e.g. paragraph [0047]: “An add power offset between the first power and the base power of the peripheral zone will typically be in the range of 0.5 diopters to 5 diopters.”).”
Hovinga further teaches that the shape of the maxima and minima can be sinusoidal (Fig. 2A and paragraph [0044] or the dioptric values of the maxim and minima increase as a function of radial location (Fig. 2C and paragraph [0049]).
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the maxima and minima of the power function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a shape wherein the deviation amplitude relative to the average optical power of the peripheral zone is equal to the deviation amplitude relative to the substantially constant first power in the second region as taught by Lin Fig. 14 and Hovinga Fig. 2A since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because Hovinga teaches that an ordinary skilled artisan can select from a variety of shapes including ones with constant amplitude or increasing amplitude.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Lin teaches the lens of claims 1 and 18 however Lin fails to explicitly teach “wherein the positive deviations and the negative deviations in the second region and the peripheral zone are determined by variations in surface curvature.”
Hovinga teaches (claim 1) “An ophthalmic lens (ophthalmic lens 100), comprising:
a central zone (central optical zine 110) … characterized by a substantially constant first optical power (e.g. paragraph [0036]: “the central zone may have only a single power” or Fig. 2A,2C -3.0 diopters) … and
a peripheral zone (peripheral zone 120, 220, 230) disposed radially outward of the central zone (see Figs. 1 and 2A,2C), the peripheral zone having positive and negative deviations as a function of radial position (see Figs. 2A, 2C and e.g. paragraph [0044]: “A radial power profile of the peripheral zone can have any of a variety of shapes comprising maxima and minima.”), relative to an average optical power (paragraph [0045]: “The base power in the peripheral zone … may vary (increase… ) in the radial direction with the spatial modulation causing offsets from the base power at a given location.”) from the substantially constant first optical power (e.g. paragraph [0047]: “An add power offset between the first power and the base power of the peripheral zone will typically be in the range of 0.5 diopters to 5 diopters.”).”
(claims 12 and 19) “wherein the positive deviations and the negative deviations in… the peripheral zone are determined by variations in surface curvature (paragraph [0043]: “Radial power may be varied using localized variations in surface curvature”).”
Lin teaches the lens of claims 12 and 19 except for the manner in which the radial power variations are achieved being by variations in the surface curvature. Hovinga teaches that “Radial power may be varied using localized variations in surface curvature or localized variations in index of refraction.” (paragraph [0043]).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize surface curvature variations which is one of two known methods for achieving radial power variations as taught by Hovinga in the lens of Lin because Lin teaches creating such radial power variations but is silent as to how they should be produced, thus an ordinary skilled artisan would look to Hovinga to decide how to achieve them.
Regarding claim 20, the Lin – Hovinga combination teaches “The lens of claim 19,” and Lin further teaches “wherein the average optical power in the peripheral zone increases linearly (the 4-point running average within the peripheral zone has only two points. Since two points define a line, the average optical power over a 4-point running average increases linearly. From the data points [r,d] of the four-point average being[3.5,-0.375],[3.7,2], the linear equation of the average optical power is d=11.875r - 41.9375).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that although prior art rejections over the following references are possible, they were considered to be both duplicative and burdensome to applicant at this time.
Oyama et al. US 6,286,956 “Multifocal Ocular Lens Including Intermediate Vision Correction Region Between Near and Distant Vision Correction Regions”
See Figs. 10 and 11, col. 7 lines 43-50: “In the distribution pattern of FIG. 10, however, the intermediate vision correction region 18 includes two pairs of first and second transition points 20, 22, that is, two first transition points 20 and two second transition points 22, which are alternately located in the radial direction. However, three or more pairs of first and second transition points 20, 22 may be provided in the intermediate vision correction region 18.” and col. 10 lines 27-33: “Where the optical power continuously varies in the intermediate vision correction region 18 in the radial direction, the distribution of the optical power may be suitably determined so as to meet various requirements of optical characteristics.” Taken together these teachings would appear to render obvious a peripheral zone with a plurality of positive and negative deviations from an increasing average optical power.
Holden et al. US 2015/0316788 A1 “Ophthalmic Optical Lens for Vision Correction Having One or More Areas of More Positive Power”
See e.g. Figs. 2, 10 and 11 and discussions thereof in the specification. Note that a portion of the peripheral zone that has a constant power, can still be a negative deviation from the average optical power. Also note that as currently written, claim 1 only requires the presence of an increasing average optical power from the first optical power within the peripheral zone, not that the inner radius of the peripheral zone is defined by the point at which the average optical power begins to increase from the first optical power.
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights