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
Applicant’s remarks regarding the art of Donnerhacke, Examiner is not persuaded. As best as Examiner understands, Applicant is trying to parse “acquiring” versus “ascertaining”, but Applicant’s specification does not contain a special definition. Applicant’s specification only contains suggested meanings:
In general, the term “acquiring” data may refer to a direct measurement of that data. The term “ascertaining” data can relate to an indirect calculation of data, in particular a calculation from other previously acquired and/or measured data, which may be related to the actual data to be ascertained…Both terms, i.e. “ascertaining” and “acquiring”, can include saving, displaying and/or other providing of data (Spec. page 7, lines 29-32).
While Applicant states that the “ascertaining step of claim 18, as amended, requires deriving aberrometric data for a lighting state for which data was not directly acquired”, Examiner notes claim 18 does not recite any “derivation” or any “not directly acquired” lighting state data.
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).
In other words, Applicant’s ascertaining is also an acquiring and Applicant’s acquiring is also an ascertaining, as is consistent with Applicant’s own specification.
Regardless of Applicant’s semantics on acquiring and ascertaining, absent any claim language to the contrary, “ascertaining” and “acquiring” are both understood to be any data collection/measurement/calculating/monitoring/etc.
Therefore, at least Donnerhacke’s claims 1 and 2 capture Applicant’s claims 18 and 32 as set forth in the Office Action mailed January 23, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the outstanding USC 112(b) issues, unless otherwise noted below.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 has lost the “a), b), d)” designations. Examiner suggests including the “a), b), d)” so as to ensure dependent claims properly refer to steps a), b) and/or d).
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) refraction unit configured to acquire… in claims 19, 32, 34
b) a pupil measuring unit configured to acquire…in claims 19, 32, 34
c) an aberrometry measuring unit configured to acquire…in claims 19, 32, 34
d) an aberrometry ascertaining unit configured to ascertain…in claims 32, 34
e) a manipulation device configured to switch…in claim 34
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 26, the claim recites “a latency from a switchover to an onset of a pupil response” which is unclear what the switchover is of/between (MPEP 2173.05(b)). From a switchover of what? For purposes of compact prosecution, such language is optional so will be ignored.
As to claim 30, the claim recites “the previously acquired aberrometric measurement data” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 31, the claim recites “the following” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
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 18-21, 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Donnerhacke et al. (US 7,364,299 - Donnerhacke; of record).
As to claim 18, Donnerhacke teaches a method for determining objective measurement data of at least one eye of a user during subjective refraction (Donnerhacke Fig. 3; claim 1), the method comprising
a) acquiring subject refraction data of the at least one eye in a first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 305, 308; col. 5:30-40; col. 5:59-63; claim 1 - performing subjective testing of visual acuity to verify correction of said refractive errors);
b) acquiring and/or ascertaining pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the first and a second lighting state different from the first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304, 306; col. 5:25-30; col. 5:40-48; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - projecting light at a second brightness level in the at least one eye of the patient, said second brightness level being different from said first brightness level; monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level);
d) acquiring aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the first or the second lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size) and ascertaining aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the other one of the first and second lighting states taking into account the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size).
As to claim 19, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches the method is carried out using a single measuring device (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 301) into which a refraction unit configured to acquire the subjective refraction data (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 308, 305), a pupil measuring unit configured to acquire the pupillometric measurement data (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 306), and an aberrometry measuring unit configured to acquire the aberrometric data (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307) are integrated (Donnerhacke Fig. 3).
As to claim 20, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches switching between the lighting states without changing an ambient lighting condition (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 301, 304; col. 5:23-33).
As to claim 21, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches a switch between the lighting states is effected by changing brightness of a display unit (Donnerhacke Fig. 3- 304; col. 5:23-33).
As to claim 22, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches alternative condition c). Therefore claim 22 limiting step d) is considered optional.
As to claim 23, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches b1) the pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye in at least one of the first and second lighting states are directly measured using a pupillometric measurement of the pupil of the at least one eye fully adapted to a respective one of the first and second lighting states performed during the respective one of the first and second lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304, 306; col. 5:25-30; col. 5:40-48; claim 1; claim 2).
As to claim 24, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 23, and Donnerhacke further teaches b3) the pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye are directly measured in at least one of the first and second lighting states using a pupillometric measurement of the pupil of the at least one eye still fully adapted to a respective one of the first and second lighting states performed during another of the first and second lighting states, and within a latency period after a switchover from the respective one of the first and second lighting states to the another of the first and second lighting states and before the pupil starts adapting to the another of the first and second lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304, 306; col. 5:25-30; col. 5:40-48; col. 8:8-18 claim 1; claim 2).
As to claim 25, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 24, and Donnerhacke further teaches a measurement of the pupillometric data is performed within at most 230ms after the switchover to a darker one of the first and second lighting states (Donnerhacke col. 8:8-18 - aberration measurement and pupil size measurement being simultaneous (i.e. ~ 0ms) with the varying light levels).
As to claim 26, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 24, and Donnerhacke further teaches the alternative limitations of b1 and b3, therefore claim 26 limiting steps b2, b4 is considered optional.
As to claim 27, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches acquiring a brightness of the first and/or second lighting state (Donnerhacke col. 5:5-33; claim 1; claim 2).
As to claim 28, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches steps a), b) or d) are repeated for a different viewing distance of the at least one eye (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 308, 305; col. 5:30-40; col. 5:59-67; col. 6:1-16; col. 7:25-32).
As to claim 29, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches the subjective refraction data, the pupillometric measurement data, and the aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye is acquired and/or ascertained in the first lighting state (Donnerhacke claim 1);
the pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the second lighting state is either directly measured and thereby acquired or is ascertained from data measured during an adjustment of the pupil to the first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304, 306; col. 5:25-30; col. 5:40-48; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - projecting light at a second brightness level in the at least one eye of the patient, said second brightness level being different from said first brightness level; monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level);
the aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the second lighting state is calculated from the acquired aberrometric measurement data in the first lighting state taking into account the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size).
As to claim 30, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches the aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the first lighting state are acquired before the subjective refraction data are acquired, and wherein the previously acquired aberrometric measurement data is input as a starting point for the subjective refraction (Donnerhacke col. 5:60-67; col. 6:1-16).
As to claim 31, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, and Donnerhacke further teaches at least acquired and/or ascertained data including at least one of the following is processed, as universal refraction data, to create data for at least one individual eye lens for the user (Donnerhacke col. 2:43-46): the subjective refraction data in the first lighting state, or the pupillometric data in the first and second lighting states, or the aberrometric data in the first and second lighting states (Donnerhacke col. 2:43-46).
As to claim 32, Donnerhacke teaches a measuring device for determining objective measurement data of at least one eye of a user during a subjective refraction, comprising:
a refraction unit configured to acquire subjective refraction data of the at least one eye in a first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 305, 308; col. 5:30-40; col. 5:59-63; claim 1);
a pupil measuring unit configured to acquire and/or ascertain pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the first and a second lighting state different from the first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304, 306; col. 5:25-30; col. 5:40-48; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - projecting light at a second brightness level in the at least one eye of the patient, said second brightness level being different from said first brightness level; monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level);
an aberrometry measuring unit configured to acquire aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in at least one of the first and second lighting states (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size); and
an aberrometry ascertaining unit configured to ascertain aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the other of the first and second lighting states taking into account the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size).
As to claim 33, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 32, and Donnerhacke further teaches a manipulation device configured to switch between the first and second lighting states by a manipulation of an observation beam path through the refraction unit (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304; col. 5:25-39), the manipulation device comprises a light source (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304; col. 5:25-39).
As to claim 34, Donnerhacke teaches a non-transitory computer program product comprising computer-readable program parts (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 309) which, when loaded and executed, cause a measuring device (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 301) for determining objective measurement data of at least one eye of a user during a subjective refraction, including
a refraction unit configured to acquire subjective refraction data of the at least one eye in a first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 305, 308; col. 5:30-40; col. 5:59-63; claim 1),
a pupil measuring unit configure to acquire and/or ascertain pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the first and a second lighting state different from the first lighting state (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304, 306; col. 5:25-30; col. 5:40-48; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - projecting light at a second brightness level in the at least one eye of the patient, said second brightness level being different from said first brightness level; monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level),
an aberrometry measuring unit configured to acquire aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in at least one of the first and second lighting states (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size), and
an aberrometry ascertaining unit configured to ascertain aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the other of the first and second lighting states taking into account the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data of the at least one eye (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 307; col. 5:47-60; claim 1 - monitoring and measuring a first pupil size at said first brightness level and detecting aberrations at the first pupil size; claim 2 - monitoring and measuring a second pupil size at said second brightness level and detecting aberrations at the second pupil size) to perform a method according to claim 18, wherein the non-transitory computer program product at least partially controls and/or regulates a unit selected from a group of units comprising:
the refraction unit (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 309, 305, 308);
the pupil measuring unit (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 309, 304, 306);
the aberrometry measuring unit (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 309, 307);
the aberrometry ascertaining unit (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 309, 307);
a manipulation device configured to switch between the first and second lighting states (Donnerhacke Fig. 3 - 304).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnerhacke as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dai (US 2007/0201001).
As to claim 22, Donnerhacke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above in claim 18, but doesn’t specify in step d), the aberrometric measurement data of the at least one eye in the other of the first and second lighting states are ascertained by:
d1) representing the already acquired aberrometric measurement data in the first or second lighting state in a set of Zernike coefficients, and scaling the set of coefficients using the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data to the other of the first and second lighting state; and/or
d2) cutting out aberrometric data of a pupil shape according to the pupillometric measurement data acquired and/or ascertained for the other lighting state from the acquired aberrometric measurement data of a pupil shape according to the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data belonging to the lighting state for which also the aberrometric measurement data were acquired, and/or
d3) extrapolating the already acquired aberrometric measurement data in the first or second lighting state to the pupil shape according to the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data in the other lighting state.
In the same field of endeavor Dai teaches ascertaining aberrometric data in an eye in one light state (pupil size) from another lighting state by
d1) representing the already acquired aberrometric measurement data in the first or second lighting state in a set of Zernike coefficients, and scaling the set of coefficients using the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data to the other of the first and second lighting state (Dai para. [0002], [0004], [0007]); or
d3) extrapolating the already acquired aberrometric measurement data in the first or second lighting state to the pupil shape according to the acquired and/or ascertained pupillometric measurement data in the other lighting state (Dai para. [0002], [0004], [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to ascertain the data via Zernike scaling or extrapolating since, as taught by Dai, such techniques allow for scaling/extrapolating the aberrations of the eye for different pupil sizes (lighting conditions) based on an original pupil size/lighting condition (Dai para. [0002], [0004], [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dai (US 7,717,562); Dai (Scaling Zernike expansion coefficients to smaller pupil sizes: a simpler formula)1.
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 May 21, 2026
1 Guang-ming Dai, "Scaling Zernike expansion coefficients to smaller pupil sizes: a simpler formula," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 23, 539-543 (2006)
Prosecution Insights