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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
USC 112(f) Invocation
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the USC 112(f) invocation, Examiner is not persuaded. Examiner reminds Applicant that “[a]pplication of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d at 1194, 29 USPQ2d at 1850”; see MPEP 2181.
As discussed in the Office Action mailed February 19, 2026, the claim uses a nonce term “member” (Prong A) and then recites a function “lens gap adjustment…to adjust a gap” (Prong B) and then fails to recite any structure to perform the function (Prong C). Thus, as per the claim language, the limitation invokes USC 112(f).
Applicant’s remarks1 that “a lens gap adjustment member” may be sufficiently understood as referring to any physical structure capable of performing the function appears to be prohibited new matter. Applicant did not disclose all possible structures capable of performing the function.
USC 102 Rejection under Stark (US 751,116)
Regarding Applicant’s remarks that “the case (E) of Stark, which corresponds to the zoom ring (130) or claim 1, is received within the case (B) of Stark, which corresponds to the lens barrel (121, 123) of claim 1, rather than the case (E) receiving the case (B). In other words, the receiving structure is reversed”, such features are not in fact claimed. The requirement of the claim is the zoom ring accommodating the lens barrel. Accommodating is merely adapted to/fit to2. Thus Stark’s zoom ring (E) is adapted to/fit to the lens barrel (B).
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).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks that the structures differ with respect to movability. Examiner is not persuaded. Again, the claim does not require what Applicant suggests. The language “the sliding groove includes a serrated portion to which the lens gap adjustment member slidably engages in the first direction” includes the serrated portion is what slides, and the lens gap adjustment member engages the sliding of the serrated portion. This is how Stark’s gap adjustment member, sliding groove, and serrated portion function. The serrated portion (J) moves left-right (in the Figure) in the sliding groove while being engaged with gap adjustment member (I, L).
Lastly, while Applicant does not discuss the amendments as they pertain to the art of Stark, such amendments do no overcome Stark. Stark’s zoom ring (E) is configured to translationally move in a direction parallel to the first direction (optical axis). Similarly, while Stark’s adjustment gap adjustment member (I, L) do no move relative to the casing (B), the entire camera can in fact be moved translationally in a direction parallel to the first direction (optical axis). Thus, Stark’s zoom ring (E) is “configured to” translationally move in the first direction (e.g. barrel (E) slides left/right) and Stark’s gap adjustment member (I, J, L) is also “configured to” translationally move simply by moving the camera.
USC 102 Rejection under Mahn (US 3,122,079)
Applicant’s amendments do not appear to overcome the art of Mahn. Specifically, Mahn’s zoom ring (5’) translationally moves parallel to the first direction (optical axis direction; left-right in the figures) as shown and discussed via sliding of slider (10, 7’). Similarly, the lens gap adjustment member (10, 7’, 6a’) is translationally moved parallel to the first direction - e.g. sliders (10, 7’) are moved left-right.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 10), Examiner suggests -- the [[les]] lens gap --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) lens gap adjustment member…to adjust a gap… in claims 1, 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 11, the claims recite “a lens gap adjustment member” which is a claim term that invokes USC 112(f), however Applicant states3 such limitation covers any physical structure capable of performing the function. Applicant has only disclosed a single physical structure for performing the function. Examiner requests Applicant to point out the support for “any physical structure capable of performing the function”.
Claims 9-10, 12-14, 16 do not resolve the issue and are thus rejected as dependent upon claim 1 or 11.
Claims 2, 15 (and their dependents) resolve the issue by reciting structural limitations (sliding portion, bridge portion) to the lens gap adjustment member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Stark (US 751,116; of record).
As to claim 1, Stark teaches a lens module (Stark Figs. 1-7) comprising
a lens barrel (Stark Fig. 1 - B; Fig. 3 - B) including a plurality of lenses arranged in a first direction (Stark Fig. 1 - C, D; page 1:lines 60-65);
a zoom ring accommodating the lens barrel (Stark Fig. 1 - E; Fig. 3 - E);
a lens gap adjustment member (Stark Fig. 6 - I, J, L) coupled to the lens barrel and the zoom ring to adjust a gap between the plurality of lenses (Stark page 1:lines 85-98);
wherein the lens barrel and the zoom ring form a sliding groove (Stark Fi. 6 - groove and space between barrel (B) and ring (E); see below) extending in a first direction to guide a movement of the lens gap adjustment member (Stark Fig. 6);
wherein the sliding groove includes a serrated portion (Stark Fig. 6 - J) to which the lens gap adjustment member slidably engages in the first direction (Stark Fig. 6 - I, J).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the zoom ring and the lens gap adjustment member are configured to translationally move, in a direction parallel to the first direction (Stark Fig. 1 - zooming ring (E) moves left-right; lens gap adjustment member (I, J, L) are configured to translationally move left-right with the camera).
As to claim 9, Stark teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Stark further teaches first and second ball members disposed between the lens barrel and the zoom ring to guide a movement of the zoom ring in the first direction (Stark Fig. 1 - F; page 1:lines78-82).
As to claim 10, Stark teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Stark further teaches the lens gap adjustment member and the first and second ball members are disposed at angular intervals in a circumferential direction of the zoom ring and the lens barrel (Stark Fig. 2 - L, F).
Claims 1-4, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Mahn (US 3,122,079; of record).
As to claim 1, Mahn teaches a lens module (Mahn Figs. 2, 2a) comprising
a lens barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 1’, 2, 3) including a plurality of lenses arranged in a first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4’; 4a’);
a zoom ring accommodating the lens barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 5’; Fig. 2a - 5’);
a lens gap adjustment member (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10, 7’, 6a’, 11) coupled to the lens barrel and the zoom ring to adjust a gap between the plurality of lenses (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10, 7’; col. 2:lines 55-61);
wherein the lens barrel and the zoom ring form a sliding groove (Mahn Fig. 2 - 8a’, 8’; col. 3:8-10) extending in a first direction to guide a movement of the lens gap adjustment member (Mahn Fig. 2 - 8a’, 8’);
wherein the sliding groove includes a serrated portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 12; col. 3:16-19) to which the lens gap adjustment member slidably engages in the first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11,12; col. 3:16-25);
the zoom ring and the lens gap adjustment member are configured to translationally move, in a direction parallel to the first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - zoom ring (5’) moves left-right with the sliding (translational movement) of adjustment member (10, 7’, 6a’)).
As to claim 2, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Mahn further teaches the lens gap adjustment member includes a sliding portion movable in the first direction within the sliding groove (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10, 7’) and a bridge portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11) having a side disposed on the sliding portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 10) and another side disposed on the lens barrel to support movement of the sliding portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 12).
As to claim 3, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Mahn further teaches the sliding portion includes a fixing protrusion coupled to the serrated portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11; col. 3:15-20), the sliding portion is slidable in the first direction when the serrated portion and the fixing protrusion are misaligned (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 12; col. 3:15-20), and fixed when the fixing protrusion is engaged with the serrated portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 12; col. 3:16-19).
As to claim 4, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Mahn further teaches the lens barrel includes a fixed barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 1’, 2’) including at least one lens (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4a’) and a movable barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 3’), including at least one lens (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4’) configured to move relative to the fixed barrel in the first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4’), and wherein as the movable barrel moves, a gap between the at least one lens of the fixed barrel and the at least one of the movable barrel changes (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4’, 4a’).
As to claim 11, Mahn teaches a lens module (Mahn Figs. 2, 2a), comprising
a lens barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 1’, 2, 3) including a plurality of lenses arranged in a first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4’; 4a’);
a zoom ring accommodating the lens barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 5’; Fig. 2a - 5’);
a lens gap adjustment member (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10, 7’, 6a’, 11) coupled to the lens barrel and the zoom ring (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10, 7’; col. 2:lines 55-61), configured to be movable in the first direction (Mahn Fig. 2a - 10, 7’);
wherein the lens barrel includes a movable barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 3’, Fig. 2a - 3’; col. 2:59-62), including a first lens group (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4’), and a fixed barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 1’, 2’), including a second lens group (Mahn Fig. 2 - 4a’);
the zoom ring and the movable barrel are configured to translationally move, in a direction parallel to the first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - 5’, 3’; Fig. 2a - 5’, 3’), together with the lens gap adjustment member (Mahn Fig. 2; col. 2:56-63; col. 3:9-15)/
As to claim 14, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Mahn further teaches the fixed barrel and the zoom ring form a sliding groove extending in the first direction to guide a movement of the lens gap adjustment member (Mahn FIg. 2 - 8a’, 8’).
As to claim 15, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Mahn further teaches the lens gap adjustment member includes a sliding portion movable in the first direction within the sliding groove (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10, 7’) and a bridge portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11) having a side disposed on the sliding portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 10) and another side disposed on the lens barrel to support movement of the sliding portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 12).
As to claim 16, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Mahn further teaches the sliding groove includes a serrated portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 12; col. 3:15-20) to which the lens gap adjustment member slidably engages in the first direction (Mahn Fig. 2 - 10) and the sliding portion includes a fixing protrusion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11; col. 3:15-20) coupled to the serrated portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 12; col. 3:15-20).
Claims 1, 11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 7,019,913).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches a lens module (Wang Figs. 1-12) comprising
a lens barrel (110, 140, 150, 170) including a plurality of lenses arranged in a first direction (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - unlabeled lenses);
a zoom ring accommodating the lens barrel (Wang Fig. 1 - 120);
a lens gap adjustment member (Wang Fig. 1 - 122) coupled to the lens barrel and the zoom ring to adjust a gap between the plurality of lenses (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - 122);
wherein the lens barrel and the zoom ring form a sliding groove extending in a first direction to guide a movement of the lens gap adjustment member (Wang Fig. 1 - 120, 111, 110; Fig. 8 - 120, 110; see below);
wherein the sliding groove includes a serrated portion (Wang Fig. 3 - 112, 114, 115) to which the lens gap adjustment member slidably engages in the first direction (Wang Fig. 2 - 122; Figs. 7-12 - 122; col. 2:56-65; col. 3:9-14);
wherein the zoom ring and the lens gap adjustment member are configured to translationally move, in a direction parallel to the first direction (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - 122, 120).
PNG
media_image2.png
672
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Wang teaches a lens module (Wang Figs. 1-12) comprising
a lens barrel (110, 140, 150, 170) including a plurality of lenses arranged in a first direction (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - unlabeled lenses);
a zoom ring accommodating the lens barrel (Wang Fig. 1 - 120);
a lens gap adjustment member (Wang Fig. 1 - 122) coupled to the lens barrel and zoom ring (Wang Fig. 2 - 140, 150, 110, 122);
wherein the lens barrel includes a movable barrel (Wang Fig. 2 - 140; Figs. 8, 10, 12 - 8), including a first lens group (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - barrel (140) including unlabeled moving lens), and a fixed barrel (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - 110), including a second lens group (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - barrel (110) including unlabeled fixed lens);
and the zoom ring and the movable barrel are configured to translationally move, in a direction parallel to the first direction (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - 120, 140), together with the lens gap adjustment member (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12 - 140, 120, 122).
As to claim 14, Wang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Wang further teaches the fixed barrel and the zoom ring form a sliding groove extending in the first direction to guide a movement of the lens gap adjustment member (Wang Figs. 8, 10, 12; see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
672
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, Wang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Wang further teaches the sliding groove includes a serrated portion (Wang Fig. 3 - 112, 114, 115) to which the lens gap adjustment member slidably engages in the first direction (Wang Fig. 2 - 122; Figs. 7-12 - 122; col. 2:56-65; col. 3:9-14) and the sliding portion includes a fixing protrusion coupled to the serrated portion (Wang Fig. 1 - 122).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahn as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wick et al. (US 3,747,498 - Wick; of record).
As to claim 5, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Mahn further teaches the bridge portion (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11) has a portion extending downwardly from the sliding portion and disposed in an accommodating groove formed in the fixed barrel (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 12, 1’), but doesn’t specify a first portion a extending upwardly from the sliding portion and disposed in the movable barrel.
In the same field of endeavor Wick teaches a lens module with an adjustment member with a sliding portion (Wick Fig. 3 - 105d) and a bridge portion (Wick Fig. 3 - 105b, 105a, 104, 105c, 105e), the bridge portion includes a first bridge portion extending upwardly from the sliding portion and disposed in a movable barrel (Wick Fig. 3 - 105c, 105e, 102a; col. 6:33-38; col. 6:52-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such bridge portion since, as taught by Wick, such elements allow for adjusting the axial position of movable lens/lens barrels (Wick Fig. 3; col. 6:33-61).
As to claim 6, Mahn in view of Wick teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Wick further teaches an end of the first bridge portion has plural bent portions (Wick Fig. 3 - 104, 105a, 105c, 105e).
As to claim 7, Mahn in view of Wick teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Wick further teaches the movable barrel (Wick Fig. 3 - 102) includes a seating groove (Wick Fig. 3 - 102a) in an outer circumferential surface (Wick Fig. 3 - 102a, 102) into which an end of the first bridge portion is inserted (Wick Fig. 3 - 105e, 102a), and the movable barrel is moved in the first direction by the first bridge portion (Wick Fig. 3; col. 6:52-58).
As to claim 8, Mahn in view of Wick teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Mahn/Wick further teaches the second bridge portion is configured to maintain contact with at least an inner wall portion of the accommodating groove when disposed in the accommodating groove (Mahn Fig. 2 - 11, 12; Wick Fig. 3 - 104, 101a; col. 6:25-30).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahn as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stark (cited above).
As to claim 12, Mahn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, but doesn’t specify first and second ball members disposed between the fixed barrel and the zoom ring, including a plurality of ball members disposed in a first direction.
In the same field of endeavor Stark teaches first and second ball members disposed between the fixed barrel and the zoom ring, including a plurality of ball members disposed in a first direction (Stark Fig. 1 - F; page 1:lines78-82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide ball bearings since, as taught by Stark, such ball bearing are well known in the art for the purpose of allowing relative movement between the barrel/rings (Stark Fig. 1 - F; page 1:lines78-82).
As to claim 13, Mahn in view of Stark teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Stark further teaches the lens gap adjustment member and the first and second ball members are disposed at angular intervals in a circumferential direction of the zoom ring and the lens barrel (Stark Fig. 1 - F, I, L).
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 15, 2026
1 Remarks filed May 19, 2026; page 5
2 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/accommodate_v?tab=meaning_and_use#38249448
3 Remarks filed May 19, 2026; page 5
Prosecution Insights