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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claims 1 and 11 have been considered, but are not persuasive. The new ground of rejection cites Signoretto US 2024/0345411 (use figs.1-9 and 21-23 instead of figs.1-8 and 21-23) as teaching the amended claim limitations in claims 1 and 11. Regarding argument about claims 15 and 16, it’s a common sense that the thickness of 40 is the same as 40A, by just rotating the lens itself in figs.1, 9 and 23, not the total thickness of 40A with 40B and a gap in between 40A and 40B, so that the inventor does not need to mention about the thickness of 40 additionally.
The Examiner suggestions: amending independent claims 1 and 11 with claims 6, 7, 17, 18 and 19 will over the rejection of Signoretto US 2024/0345411 and further searching will be required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Signoretto US 2024/0345411.
Regarding claim 11, Signoretto discloses an ocular optical system, in at least figs. 1-9 and 21-23, configured to allow imaging rays from a display screen (10 or 10 with 20) to enter an eye of an observer (U) through the ocular optical system to form an image (see fig.1 and para.95), wherein a side toward the eye is an eye-side (see fig.1), and a side toward the display screen is a display-side (see fig.1), the ocular optical system comprises a first optical element (40PB) and a second optical element (40) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from the eye-side to the display-side (see fig.1), each of the first optical element and the second optical element comprising an eye-side surface facing the eye-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through and a display-side surface facing the display-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (see fig.1), the ocular optical system also comprises a reflective polarizing film (51) and a quarter-wave plate (52);
the first optical element is a flat plate (see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the first optical element is a flat plate with no refractive power), an optical axis region and a periphery region of the eye-side surface of the first optical element are flat (see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the first optical element is a flat plate with no refractive power), and an optical axis region and a periphery region of the display-side surface of the first optical element are flat (see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the first optical element is a flat plate with no refractive power);
the second optical element is the only optical element having refractive power in the ocular optical system (see figs.1, 8 and 23);
the eye-side surface of the first optical element, the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element satisfy a conditional expression as follows:
PV≤160 μm, wherein a PV is a peak to valley value of a surface (PV equal to 0 μm, see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the eye-side surface of the first optical element, the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element are flat);
the reflective polarizing film is disposed on the eye-side of the first optical element (see fig.1);
the quarter-wave plate is disposed between the reflective polarizing film and the eye-side of the first optical element (see fig.1); and
there is no air gap between the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, Signoretto discloses the display-side surface of the second optical element is convex (see at least fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 2.5≤ImgH/T2≤3.7 (ImgH/T2=24.75/8=3.09 for figs.1, 9 and 23), wherein T2 is a thickness of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 16, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 3.0≤ER22/T2≤7.0 (25.9/8=3.23 for figs.1, 9 and 23), wherein ER22 is a maximum distance from a center of the display-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, and T2 is a thickness of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signoretto US 2024/0345411.
Regarding claim 1, Signoretto discloses an ocular optical system, in at least figs. 1-9 and 21-23, configured to allow imaging rays from a display screen (10 or 10 with 20) to enter an eye of an observer (U) through the ocular optical system to form an image (see fig.1 and para.95), wherein a side toward the eye is an eye-side (see fig.1), and a side toward the display screen is a display-side (see fig.1), the ocular optical system comprises a first optical element (40PB) and a second optical element (40) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from the eye-side to the display-side (see fig.1), each of the first optical element and the second optical element comprising an eye-side surface facing the eye-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through and a display-side surface facing the display-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (see fig.1), the ocular optical system also comprises a reflective polarizing film (51) and a quarter-wave plate (52);
the first optical element is a flat plate (see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the first optical element is a flat plate with no refractive power), an optical axis region and a periphery region of the eye-side surface of the first optical element are flat (see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the first optical element is a flat plate with no refractive power), and an optical axis region and a periphery region of the display-side surface of the first optical element are flat (see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the first optical element is a flat plate with no refractive power);
the second optical element is the only optical element having refractive power in the ocular optical system (see figs.1 and 8);
the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element satisfy a conditional expression as follows: PV≤160 μm, wherein a PV is a peak to valley value of a surface (PV equal to 0 μm, see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element are flat);
the reflective polarizing film is disposed on the eye-side of the first optical element (see fig.1);
the quarter-wave plate is disposed between the reflective polarizing film and the eye-side of the first optical element (see fig.1);
the ocular optical system satisfies a conditional expression as follows:
|ObjD|/ImgH ≥2 (para.95 teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer),
wherein ObjD is a distance from the eye of the observer to the image formed by the ocular optical system on the optical axis (see para.95 and fig.1), and ImgH is a maximum image height of the ocular optical system (see fig.1).
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200. However, Signoretto discloses |ObjD|/ImgH ≥2 (para.95 teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200, which is included in the range of |ObjD|/ImgH ≥2. One would have chosen the value of |ObjD|/ImgH according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of |ObjD|/ImgH while not making the value of |ObjD|/ImgH overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of |ObjD|/ImgH within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 35≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image, and ImgH=24.75mm, so that |ObjD|/ImgH≥26 for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 3, Signoretto discloses the eye-side surface of the first optical element and the display-side surface of the first optical element satisfy a conditional expression as follows: PV≤5 μm (PV equal to 0 μm, see figs.1, 8 and 23 disclose the eye-side surface of the first optical element, the display-side surface of the first optical element and the eye-side surface of the second optical element are flat).
Regarding claim 4, Signoretto does not explicitly disclose the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200.
However, Signoretto discloses |ObjD|/ImgH ≥2 (para.95 teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200, which is included in the range of |ObjD|/ImgH ≥2. One would have chosen the value of |ObjD|/ImgH according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of |ObjD|/ImgH while not making the value of |ObjD|/ImgH overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of |ObjD|/ImgH within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 60≤|ObjD|/ImgH≤200 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image, and ImgH=24.75mm, so that |ObjD|/ImgH≥26 for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 5, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 18≤|ObjD|/SL≤85 (Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95), and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image and fig.21 teaches SL equal to about 26.39mm, so that |ObjD|/SL≥24.63 for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51)), wherein SL is a distance from the eye of the observer to the display screen on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 6, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: SL/ImgH=26.39/24.75=1.07 (see figs.1 and 23), wherein SL is a distance from the eye of the observer to the display screen on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8. However, Signoretto discloses SL/ImgH=26.39/24.75=1.07 (see figs.1 and 23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8, which is close enough to SL/ImgH=1.07. One would have chosen the value of SL/ImgH according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of SL/ImgH while not making the value of SL/ImgH overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of SL/ImgH within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.6≤SL/ImgH≤2.8 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 7, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: ER12/T1=8.89/0.5=49.5, wherein ER12 is a maximum distance from a center of the display-side surface of the first optical element to a mounting portion, and T1 is a thickness of the first optical element on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0. However, Signoretto discloses ER12/T1=8.89/0.5=49.5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0, which is close to ER12/T1=49.5. One would have chosen the value of ER12/T1 according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of ER12/T1while not making the value of ER12/T1 overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of ER12/T1 within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2.5≤ER12/T1≤17.0 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 8, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 2.0≤(ER11+ER21)/ALT≤10.0 ((ER11+ER21)/ALT=(49.5)/8=6.18 for fig.1), wherein ER11 is a maximum distance from a center of the eye-side surface of the first optical element to a mounting portion, ER21 is a maximum distance from a center of the eye-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, and ALT is a sum of thicknesses of the first optical element and the second optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 9, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 1.2≤ER/T1≤30.0 (ER/T1=11.15/0.5=23.3), wherein ER is a distance from the eye of the observer to the first optical element on the optical axis, and T1 is a thickness of the first optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 10, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 2.0≤SL/TL≤6.0 (SL/TL=26.39/11.2=2.36), wherein SL is a distance from the eye of the observer to the display screen on the optical axis, and TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signoretto US 2024/0345411 as applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 30≤|ObjD|/TTL≤140 (|ObjD|/TTL=650/14.54≥44.7, teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image), wherein TTL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display screen on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 14, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: 60≤|ObjD|/TL≤300 (|ObjD|/TL=650/11.2≥58, teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) and it’s well-known to have |ObjD| greater than 650mm for better enlarge virtual image), wherein TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 17, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: (ER21+ER22)/TTL=50/14.54=3.4 for fig.23, (ER21+ER22)/TTL=24.75+25.9/14.54=3.48 for fig.1, wherein ER21 is a maximum distance from a center of the eye-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, ER22 is a maximum distance from a center of the display-side surface of the second optical element to a mounting portion, and TTL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the first optical element closest to the eye-side to the display screen on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not disclose 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0. However, Signoretto discloses (ER21+ER22)/TTL=3.4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0, which is close to (ER21+ER22)/TTL=3.4. One would have chosen the value of (ER21+ER22)/TTL according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of (ER21+ER22)/TTL while not making the value of (ER21+ER22)/TTL overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of (ER21+ER22)/TTL within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.5≤(ER21+ER22)/TTL≤3.0 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 18, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: ER/T2=11.65/8=1.46 for fig.1, wherein ER is a distance from the eye of the observer to the first optical element on the optical axis, and T2 is a thickness of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly disclose 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0. However, Signoretto discloses ER/T2=1.46. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0, which is close to ER/T2=1.46. One would have chosen the value of ER/T2 according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of ER/T2 while not making the value of ER/T2 overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of ER/T2 within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2.0≤ER/T2≤4.0 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Regarding claim 19, Signoretto discloses the ocular optical system further satisfies a conditional expression as follows: EFL/TL=121/11.2=10.8 for fig.1, wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the ocular optical system, and TL is a distance from the eye-side surface of the optical element closest to the eye-side to the display-side surface of the second optical element on the optical axis.
Signoretto does not explicitly 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6. However, Signoretto discloses EFL/TL=10.8. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Signoretto’s ocular optical system to have 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6, which is close to EFL/TL=10.8. One would have chosen the value of EFL/TL according to a result effective variable balancing the need to form an ocular optical system with a value of EFL/TL while not making the value of EFL/TL overly large to make the ocular optical system unreliable. One would have been motivated to form the ocular optical system to have the value of EFL/TL within the claimed range for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51) in order to have the ocular optical system with high reliability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.4≤EFL/TL≤3.6 in the ocular optical system of Signoretto because Signoretto has the same/similar physical structure as the current application (fig.10) and teaches an enlarge virtual image for the observer as well (para.95) for the purpose of improving magnification ratio and image quality of the optical system (para.51).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights