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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 20-21 remain pending in the application, and claims 4-5, 10, 13, 16, and 18-19 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 102 and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 18, 2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, as described in the Response to Arguments and 103 Rejections below.
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 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210076935 A1 (Copland, Richard J.) in view of US 20210212601 A1 (Neal et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Copland teaches a method for spatially aligning an external measuring device with an implant in an eye of a user ([0052] “after the IOL has been implanted in the eye, aligning the measurement instrument, including the OCT interferometer, to the eye to be measured”) comprising:
detecting an alignment of a line of sight of the eye of the user relative to a main optical path of an external measuring device positioned near the eye of the user for measuring of an intraocular parameter obtained by the implant ([0052] “after the IOL has been implanted in the eye, aligning the measurement instrument, including the OCT interferometer, to the eye to be measured”), wherein detecting alignment comprises:
detecting a first alignment of the line of sight of the eye with a first target, and the main optical path using a mirror ([0074] “fixation target subsystem”; “mirrors”; [0090] “light from second light sources 132 is directed toward optical element 171 by third beamsplitter 176.”; [0092]; [0095]; [0108] “When the patient is looking directly into the instrument, with their line of sight aligned to the fixation target, the foveal pit will be in center of the OCT lateral scan”; [0122] “In operation light from light source 152 is directed along second optical path 160 to first optical path 170 and is subsequently directed to eye 101 as described above. Light reflected from the iris of eye 101 is reflected back along first optical path 170 to detector 141.”); and
tracking, using an optical instrument, a distance of the external measuring device, to the eye of a user ([0032] “reference path 1100 has a defined optical path length.”); and
determining, by one or more processors communicatively coupled to the external measuring device, based on the aligning and the tracking, whether the implant is aligned with the main optical path and the distance is optimal for measuring by the external measuring device ([0026] “provide pupil retro illumination using an optical path and optical componentry which is already present in the optical coherence tomographer of the instrument”).
Copland does not explicitly teach a second target, using a dichroic mirror, and detecting a second alignment of the line of sight in which the line of sight is adjusted to align with a third target offset from the main optical path to spatially align the implant with the main optical path.
However,
Neal teaches a second target ([0029] “The eye is focused on one of two fixation targets (“stimuli”), which are placed off to a side (i.e., off-axis)”; Fig. 24 element 12),
using a dichroic mirror ([0029] “dichroic (beamsplitter) mirror (M1)”; [0107]), and
detecting a second alignment of the line of sight in which the line of sight is adjusted to align with a third target offset from the main optical path to spatially align the implant with the main optical path ([0029] “The eye is focused on one of two fixation targets (“stimuli”), which are placed off to a side (i.e., off-axis).”; [0106] “optical system 8 comprises a first (front) set of LED light sources 12, 12′, that are arranged in a first pattern or configuration around the objective lens 18 (L1)”; [0121]; [0165] “This uses a diffractive optic (e.g., Fresnel Rings) to act as a beamsplitter to split some of the light and create focuses both for distant targets and for near targets.”; Fig. 24 element 12’).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Copland to include a dichroic mirror and second and third targets offset from the main optical path. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a dichroic mirror is a beam splitter mirror, as suggested by Neal [0029], and Copland suggests using a beamsplitter to allow light to be highly reflective and reach the eye and the camera/detector to provide information about the structures in the eye [0027]. Additionally, second and third targets offset from the main optical path allows the individual Purkinje reflections to be identified to enable a rapid analysis to identify the IOL’s position and tilt, as suggested by Neal [0106, 0121].
Regarding claim 20, Copland teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the optical instrument is a camera, and tracking comprises tracking a pupil size and orientation by the camera to determine the distance ([0027]; [0124] “Regarding iris registration images, features that are available include the position, size and shape of the pupil, the position, size and shape of the outer iris boundary (OIB), salient iris features (landmarks) and other features as are determined to be needed. Using these techniques, both patient movement between measurements (and/or during a measurement sequence) can be identified, as well as changes in the eye itself (including those induced by the measurement, such as changes in the size of the pupil, changes in pupil location, etc.).”; [0139] “determining a plurality of eye characteristics after cataract surgery, comprising ocular biometry information, anterior corneal surface information, posterior corneal surface information, anterior lens surface information, and posterior lens surface information, lens tilt information and lens position information; calculating or measuring, based on a mathematical relationship, a distance from the apex to a plane of the intraocular lens after an ocular surgical procedure”).
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210076935 A1 (Copland, Richard J.) in view of US 20210212601 A1 (Neal et al.), further in view of US 20240350254 A1 (Masch et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Copland teaches an alignment system ([0052] “after the IOL has been implanted in the eye, aligning the measurement instrument, including the OCT interferometer, to the eye to be measured”) comprising:
an intraocular implant configured to be implanted into the eye of a user ([0003] “implantation of an intraocular lens (IOL), and particularly a toric IOL, it is desired to be able to determine the orientation of the IOL, and particularly the angular orientation within the eye, for example to determine if the IOL has rotated from the desired angular orientation after surgery”; [0030] “an eye 101 under test which may include an implanted intraocular lens (IOL), for example a toric IOL.”);
an external measuring device configured to send the interrogation signal and configured to receive the intraocular parameters when aligned with the intraocular implant, the external measuring device comprising one or more visual targets and one or more mirrors, wherein the one or more visual targets comprises a first visual target positioned operable to align a line of sight of the eye with a main optical path of the external measuring device ([0030]; [0067] “Optical measurement system 1 may further include an iris imaging subsystem 40, a fixation target subsystem 50, a controller 60, including one or more processor(s) 61 and memory 62, a display 70 and an operator interface 80. Optical measurement system 1 further includes patient interface 4 for a subject to present his or her eye for measurement by optical measurement system 1.”; [0074] “shared optics 55 may comprise a number of optical elements, including mirrors, lenses and beam combiners to receive the emission from the respective subsystem to the patient's eye and, in some cases, to redirect the emission from a patient's eye along the common propagation path to an appropriate director.”; [0078] “The shared optics generally comprise one or more components of a first optical system 170 disposed along a central axis 102 passing through the opening or aperture 114 of the structure 110. First optical system 170 directs light from the various light sources along the central axis 102 towards an eye 101 and establishes a shared or common optical path along which the light from the various light sources travel to eye 101. In one embodiment, optical system 170 comprises a quarter wave plate 171, a first beamsplitter 172, a second beamsplitter 173, an optical element (e.g., a lens) 174, a second lens 175, a third beamsplitter 176, and a structure including an aperture 178.”; [0085]; [0108] “When the patient is looking directly into the instrument, with their line of sight aligned to the fixation target, the foveal pit will be in center of the OCT lateral scan”; [0125])
Copland does not explicitly teach an intraocular implant configured to be implanted into an eye of a user, configured to monitor or measure intraocular parameters and configured to provide the intraocular parameters in response to an interrogation signal, and a second visual target positioned offset from the main optical path to align the intraocular implant with the main optical path of the external measuring device.
However,
Neal teaches and a second visual target positioned offset from the main optical path to align the intraocular implant with the main optical path of the external measuring device ([0029] “The eye is focused on one of two fixation targets (“stimuli”), which are placed off to a side (i.e., off-axis).”; [0106] “optical system 8 comprises a first (front) set of LED light sources 12, 12′, that are arranged in a first pattern or configuration around the objective lens 18 (L1)”; [0165] “This uses a diffractive optic (e.g., Fresnel Rings) to act as a beamsplitter to split some of the light and create focuses both for distant targets and for near targets.”; Fig. 24 element 12’).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Copland to include a second target offset from the main optical path. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a second target offset from the main optical path allows the individual Purkinje reflections to be identified to enable a rapid analysis to identify the IOL’s position and tilt angle, as suggested by Neal [0106, 0121].
Masch teaches an intraocular implant configured to be implanted into an eye of a user, configured to monitor or measure intraocular parameters ([0078] “an ophthalmic implant 10 in the form of an IOL 12 according to one exemplary embodiment, in which the marker element 14 has a data storage unit 14b. The data storage unit 14b in this case comprises a chip 16 on which in particular information in the form of electronic data is able to be stored electronically … The data stored in the chip 16 may in particular comprise information for the identification and/or characterization of the IOL 12. Furthermore, the antenna structure 18 may be arranged in and/or on the IOL such that it is optically detectable in a machine-based manner in the case of a dilated pupil and may be used to position and/or orient the IOL 12 relative to the patient's eye.”); and
configured to provide the intraocular parameters in response to an interrogation signal ([0079] “The information provided by the marker element enables new possibilities for computer-aided optimization of IOL positioning. In addition or as an alternative, the marker element may have one or more data storage units 14b each having at least one corresponding antenna structure 18 that are able to provide information about the position and/or alignment of the IOL”; [0085-0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention have modified the system taught by Copland to include a measurement and monitoring capabilities within the implant. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the electronic antenna structure allows information to be stored and enables the IOL to be detectable in a machine-based manner to orient the IOL, and the information allows for computer-aided optimization of IOL positioning, as suggested by Masch [0078-0079].
Regarding claim 2, Copland teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the one or more mirrors comprises a first mirror operable to fold the line of sight and a second mirror operable to combine the line of sight with the main optical path ([0074] “In many embodiments, shared optics 55 may comprise a number of optical elements, including mirrors, lenses and beam combiners to receive the emission from the respective subsystem to the patient's eye and, in some cases, to redirect the emission from a patient's eye along the common propagation path to an appropriate director.”).
Regarding claim 3, Copland teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the one or more mirrors comprises a mirror aligned with the main optical path and wherein the one or more visual targets comprises an aperture configured to be aligned with the main optical path and a reflection of a pupil of eye of the user through the aperture by the mirror ([0028] “move the OCT scan mirror in a pattern that causes the spot to move on the retina, and that causes the entire pupil to fill in with light over time even when the aperture is left in place”; [0078] “The shared optics generally comprise one or more components of a first optical system 170 disposed along a central axis 102 passing through the opening or aperture 114 of the structure 110. First optical system 170 directs light from the various light sources along the central axis 102 towards an eye 101 and establishes a shared or common optical path along which the light from the various light sources travel to eye 101. In one embodiment, optical system 170 comprises a quarter wave plate 171, a first beamsplitter 172, a second beamsplitter 173, an optical element (e.g., a lens) 174, a second lens 175, a third beamsplitter 176, and a structure including an aperture 178. Additional optical systems may be used in assembly 100 to direct light beams from one or more light sources to the first optical system 170.”).
Copland does not explicitly teach a dichroic mirror.
However,
Neal teaches a dichroic mirror ([0029] “dichroic (beamsplitter) mirror (M1)”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Copland to include a dichroic mirror. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a dichroic mirror is a beam splitter mirror, as suggested by Neal [0029], and Copland suggests using a beamsplitter to allow light to be highly reflective and reach the eye and the camera/detector to provide information about the structures in the eye [0027].
Regarding claim 6, Copland teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the external measuring device further comprises a distance determining mechanism configured to detect an optimal distance between the eye and the external measuring device ([0139] “a distance from the apex to a plane of the intraocular lens after an ocular surgical procedure; calculating an optical power of the intraocular lens suitable for providing a predetermined refractive outcome; wherein a mathematical relationship is found between the preoperative and postoperative eye characteristics that accurately predict the measured distance from the apex to the plane where the intraocular lens is.).
Regarding claim 7, Copland teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the distance determining mechanism comprises a camera which is configured to track a size or orientation of a pupil of the eye to determine the distance ([0027]; [0124] “Regarding iris registration images, features that are available include the position, size and shape of the pupil, the position, size and shape of the outer iris boundary (OIB), salient iris features (landmarks) and other features as are determined to be needed. Using these techniques, both patient movement between measurements (and/or during a measurement sequence) can be identified, as well as changes in the eye itself (including those induced by the measurement, such as changes in the size of the pupil, changes in pupil location, etc.).”; [0139] “determining a plurality of eye characteristics after cataract surgery, comprising ocular biometry information, anterior corneal surface information, posterior corneal surface information, anterior lens surface information, and posterior lens surface information, lens tilt information and lens position information; calculating or measuring, based on a mathematical relationship, a distance from the apex to a plane of the intraocular lens after an ocular surgical procedure”).
Regarding claim 8, Copland teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the distance determining mechanism comprises a computerized mechanism that implements a computer vision algorithm to determine the distance ([0056] “a processor may employ feature recognition or pattern recognition software algorithm to detect the locations of the locations of fiducials on the implanted IOL in the captured image.”; [0144]).
Regarding claim 9, Copland teaches a system ([0052] “after the IOL has been implanted in the eye, aligning the measurement instrument, including the OCT interferometer, to the eye to be measured”) comprising:
an intraocular implant configured to be implanted into an eye of a user ([0003] “implantation of an intraocular lens (IOL), and particularly a toric IOL, it is desired to be able to determine the orientation of the IOL, and particularly the angular orientation within the eye, for example to determine if the IOL has rotated from the desired angular orientation after surgery”; [0030] “an eye 101 under test which may include an implanted intraocular lens (IOL), for example a toric IOL.”),
an external measuring device configured to send the interrogation signal and configured to receive the intraocular parameters when aligned with the intraocular implant ([0067] “Optical measurement system 1 may further include an iris imaging subsystem 40, a fixation target subsystem 50, a controller 60, including one or more processor(s) 61 and memory 62, a display 70 and an operator interface 80. Optical measurement system 1 further includes patient interface 4 for a subject to present his or her eye for measurement by optical measurement system 1.”; [0074] “shared optics 55 may comprise a number of optical elements, including mirrors, lenses and beam combiners to receive the emission from the respective subsystem to the patient's eye and, in some cases, to redirect the emission from a patient's eye along the common propagation path to an appropriate director.”), the external measuring device comprising one or more visual targets and one or more mirrors, wherein the one or more visual targets comprises a first visual target positioned operable to align a line of sight of the eye with a main optical path of the external measuring device ([0074] “fixation target subsystem”; “mirrors”; [0108] “When the patient is looking directly into the instrument, with their line of sight aligned to the fixation target, the foveal pit will be in center of the OCT lateral scan”; [0125]); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the external measuring device ([0067] “Optical measurement system 1 may further include an iris imaging subsystem 40, a fixation target subsystem 50, a controller 60, including one or more processor(s) 61 and memory 62, a display 70 and an operator interface 80”) and configured to:
receive alignment data indicating an alignment of the eye relative to the main optical path of the external measuring device ([0052] “operation 2010 includes, at some time after the IOL has been implanted in the eye, aligning the measurement instrument, including the OCT interferometer, to the eye to be measured.”);
receive distance data indicating a distance of the external measuring device to the eye ([0032] “reference path 1100 has a defined optical path length.”); and
determine, based on the alignment data and the distance data, whether the external measuring device is spatially aligned with the intraocular implant ([0026] “provide pupil retro illumination using an optical path and optical componentry which is already present in the optical coherence tomographer of the instrument”).
Copland does not explicitly teach configured to monitor intraocular parameters, and configured to provide the intraocular parameters in response to an interrogation signal, and a second visual target positioned offset from the main optical path and to align the intraocular implant with the main optical path of the external measuring device.
However,
However,
Neal teaches and a second visual target positioned offset from the main optical path to align the intraocular implant with the main optical path of the external measuring device ([0029] “The eye is focused on one of two fixation targets (“stimuli”), which are placed off to a side (i.e., off-axis).”; [0106] “optical system 8 comprises a first (front) set of LED light sources 12, 12′, that are arranged in a first pattern or configuration around the objective lens 18 (L1)”; [0165] “This uses a diffractive optic (e.g., Fresnel Rings) to act as a beamsplitter to split some of the light and create focuses both for distant targets and for near targets.”; Fig. 24 element 12’).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Copland to include a second target offset from the main optical path. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a second target offset from the main optical path allows the individual Purkinje reflections to be identified to enable a rapid analysis to identify the IOL’s position and tilt with high accuracy, as suggested by Neal [0106, 0121].
Masch teaches an intraocular implant configured to be implanted into an eye of a user, configured to monitor or measure intraocular parameters ([0078] “an ophthalmic implant 10 in the form of an IOL 12 according to one exemplary embodiment, in which the marker element 14 has a data storage unit 14b. The data storage unit 14b in this case comprises a chip 16 on which in particular information in the form of electronic data is able to be stored electronically … The data stored in the chip 16 may in particular comprise information for the identification and/or characterization of the IOL 12. Furthermore, the antenna structure 18 may be arranged in and/or on the IOL such that it is optically detectable in a machine-based manner in the case of a dilated pupil and may be used to position and/or orient the IOL 12 relative to the patient's eye.”); and
configured to provide the intraocular parameters in response to an interrogation signal ([0079] “The information provided by the marker element enables new possibilities for computer-aided optimization of IOL positioning. In addition or as an alternative, the marker element may have one or more data storage units 14b each having at least one corresponding antenna structure 18 that are able to provide information about the position and/or alignment of the IOL”; [0085-0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention have modified the system taught by Copland to include a measurement and monitoring capabilities within the implant. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the electronic antenna structure allows information to be stored and enables the IOL to be detectable in a machine-based manner to orient the IOL, and the information allows for computer-aided optimization of IOL positioning, as suggested by Masch [0078-0079].
Regarding claim 11, Copland teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the one or more mirrors comprises a first mirror operable to fold the line of sight and a second mirror operable to combine the line of sight with the main optical path ([0074] “In many embodiments, shared optics 55 may comprise a number of optical elements, including mirrors, lenses and beam combiners to receive the emission from the respective subsystem to the patient's eye and, in some cases, to redirect the emission from a patient's eye along the common propagation path to an appropriate director.”).
Regarding claim 12, Copland teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the one or more mirrors comprises a mirror aligned with the main optical path and wherein the one or more visual targets comprises an aperture configured to be aligned with the main optical path and a pupil of the eye of the user reflected by the mirror through the aperture ([0028] “move the OCT scan mirror in a pattern that causes the spot to move on the retina, and that causes the entire pupil to fill in with light over time even when the aperture is left in place”; [0078] “The shared optics generally comprise one or more components of a first optical system 170 disposed along a central axis 102 passing through the opening or aperture 114 of the structure 110. First optical system 170 directs light from the various light sources along the central axis 102 towards an eye 101 and establishes a shared or common optical path along which the light from the various light sources travel to eye 101. In one embodiment, optical system 170 comprises a quarter wave plate 171, a first beamsplitter 172, a second beamsplitter 173, an optical element (e.g., a lens) 174, a second lens 175, a third beamsplitter 176, and a structure including an aperture 178. Additional optical systems may be used in assembly 100 to direct light beams from one or more light sources to the first optical system 170.”).
Copland does not explicitly teach a dichroic mirror.
However,
Neal teaches a dichroic mirror ([0029] “dichroic (beamsplitter) mirror (M1)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Copland to include a dichroic mirror. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a dichroic mirror is a beam splitter mirror, as suggested by Neal [0029], and Copland suggests using a beamsplitter to allow light to be highly reflective and reach the eye and the camera/detector to provide information about the structures in the eye [0027].
Regarding claim 14, Copland teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the distance data is configured to indicate a distance between a pupil of the eye and the external measuring device, and the one or more processors determines whether the distance is optimal for measuring by the external measuring device ([0124] “Regarding iris registration images, features that are available include the position, size and shape of the pupil, the position, size and shape of the outer iris boundary (OIB), salient iris features (landmarks) and other features as are determined to be needed. Using these techniques, both patient movement between measurements (and/or during a measurement sequence) can be identified, as well as changes in the eye itself (including those induced by the measurement, such as changes in the size of the pupil, changes in pupil location, etc.).”; [0139] “determining a plurality of eye characteristics after cataract surgery, comprising ocular biometry information, anterior corneal surface information, posterior corneal surface information, anterior lens surface information, and posterior lens surface information, lens tilt information and lens position information; calculating or measuring, based on a mathematical relationship, a distance from the apex to a plane of the intraocular lens after an ocular surgical procedure”).
Regarding claim 15, Copland teaches the system of claim 14 wherein the external measuring device comprises a plurality of visual targets having different sizes, and the plurality of visual targets are configured to appear to have a same size when the distance between the pupil and the external measuring device is optimal for measuring ([0098] “Preferably, the beam diameter on the cornea is between 1 and 2 mm. Then the light travels through the cornea and focuses onto the retina of eye 101.”).
Regarding claim 21, Copland teaches the method of claim 17.
Copland does not explicitly teach wherein the implant is an electronic implant.
However,
Masch teaches wherein the implant is an electronic implant ([0078] “The data storage unit 14b furthermore has an antenna structure 18 that is connected to the chip 16”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention have modified the method taught by Copland to include an electronic implant. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the electronic antenna structure allows information to be stored and enables the IOL to be detectable in a machine-based manner to orient the IOL, as suggested by Masch [0078].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered. With respect to the 102 and 103 Rejections in the Final Office Action (See Pages 6-9 of Applicant’s Response) Applicant argues that Copland fails to teach or suggest a second visual target, as required by independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and that Masch and Neal fail to cure the deficiencies of Copland.
There are new grounds of claim rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments.
As discussed during the interview on July 21, 2026, Copland does not explicitly teach a second visual target offset from the main optical path. However, in view of the new claim amendments, claims 1 and 9 have been rejected over Copland in view of Neal and Masch, and claim 17 has been rejected over Copland in view of Neal. Examiner respectfully disagree that Neal fails to cure the deficiencies of Copland because Neal teaches utilizing two visual targets offset from the main optical path ([0029], Fig. 24), thus teaching the second target described in claims 1, 9, and 17 and the third target described in claim 17. Neal teaches an analogous optical system to Copland, and it would be obvious to incorporate a second offset target into the system of Copland to identify Purkinje reflections and rapidly identify the IOL’s position and tilt angle with high accuracy, as described by Neal [0106, 0121] and described in the 103 rejections above.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 20-21 are rejected because the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 are proper and the prior art teaches or suggests all the features of these claims for the reasons described in the 103 Rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVELYN GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-0651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5:00PM.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/EVELYN GRACE PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights