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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/678,570 filed on May 30, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted June 16, 2026 in response to the office action mailed March 13, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings of the previous office action have been overcome by the replacement drawings provided June 14, 2026, which contain no new matter and have been entered into the file.
Specification
The amended specification submitted June 2, 2026 contains no new matter and has been entered into the file.
However, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Table 7, conditional equations 1 and 2 and the definition of ImgH generate at least the following inconsistencies within the specification.
Firstly, the equation “1.55 > Tdiopter/TTL” is denoted as “Conditional Equation 2” in paragraph [0090], but as “Conditional Equation 1” in paragraphs [00184]-[00185]. Conversely, the equation “0.65 ≤ TTL/ImgH ≤ 1.0” is denoted as “Conditional Equation 1” in paragraph [0088], but as “Conditional Equation 2” in paragraphs [00186]-[00187]. For the reasons explained below, the examiner is fairly certain that the values in Table 7 correspond to the identifications of paragraphs [0088]-[0090], thus correction of the later paragraphs to be consistent with the earlier definitions is requested.
Secondly, the definition of ImgH in the specification is problematic given the values and range disclosed for TTL/ImgH as follows. The applicant has clarified in the remarks filed June 2, 2026, that TTL throughout the specification refers the physical thickness of the lens assembly from the first surface to the display. This does not introduce new matter because it is consistent with its typical use within the art. Under this definition TTL for Figs. 4 and 5 in table 1, TTL is the sum of the thicknesses of surfaces 2-4 and 9-14, thus TTL=16.13122 at the OD position. Similarly, TTL for Figs. 8 and 9 in table 4 is the sum of the thicknesses of surface 2-4 and 13-18, thus TTL=15.4655 at OD. In both instances, Figs. 6B, 7B, 10B and 11B show that the image half-height IMG HT is 11.64 (see paragraphs [0114] and [0143]) In paragraph [0089] the specification states “ImgH may be the maximum image height of the display D. The optical system of the disclosure may assume that the screen output from the display is recognized by the cornea of the user's eye. Therefore, the ‘maximum image height’ is related to the size of the display D on which an object may be displayed, and may mean half of the diagonal length of the display D. Conditional Equation 1 is an equation for a ratio of the total length (TTL) of the entire optical system and the maximum image height ratio used in the display D.” Under this definition, TTL/ImgH would take values of 16.13122/11.64=1.39 and 15.4655/11.64=1.33, which are not consistent with Table 7 and do not fall within the claimed range. However, if ImgH is the full diagonal image height of the display, then these values would be divided by 2, and be equal to 0.69 and 0.66, consistent with 0.7 and 0.67 of Table 7 (especially given that ImgHT is a Figure may not be exact).
Defining ImgH to be the full diagonal height and IMG HT to be the half diagonal height is needlessly confusing, thus the examiner leaves the method of correcting this discrepancy to the best judgement of the applicant. The examiner also defers to the applicant regarding incorporating a specific definition of ImgH as the full diagonal height into claims 2 and 17. Note however, that neither a written description, nor an indefiniteness issue is raised by the above issues, because there is only one interpretation of TTL/ImgH that results in the values of Table 7 and is within the claimed range, thereby disambiguating amongst the possible interpretations.
Thirdly, although the expression Tdiopter/TTL has been deleted from the claims which overcomes the previous 35 USC §112(a)/(b) rejections, the inconsistency between the values in the tables still raises issues with the specification. If, as explained by applicant, one evaluates Tdiopter and TTL as solely referring to the physical thicknesses, regardless of the optical path, then the values in Tables 1 and 4 result in the following:
Table 1
Table 4
Table 7
Tdiopter surfaces
9-14
13-18
value
9.990009
8.434855
TTL surfaces
2-3 and 8-14
2-4 and 13-18
value
16.13122
15.4655
Tdiopter/TTL
0.619
0.545
0.97 and 1.52
In the remarks filed June 2, 2026, the applicant merely explained the manner in which TTL and Tdiopter should be interpreted without explaining how the values in Table 7 were reached. As is readily apparent from the replacement drawing of Fig. 4 (reproduced below), Tdiopter will always be smaller than TTL, such that Tdiopter/TTL can never take a value greater than 1, such as 1.52 from Table 7. Further, as pointed out in the previous 112 rejections the thickness of the first lens is not negligible thus Tdiopter/TTL=0.97 is also implausible.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given that 1.55 > Tdiopter/TTL is no longer present in the claims, there is nothing wrong with this statement in the specification itself, because there is no requirement that the specification has to enable the full disclosed range. However, the values in Table 7 still need correcting.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Most of the 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. However, the 35 USC §112(b) issue of claim 20 has not been addressed and the following new 35 USC §112(a)/(b) rejections are raised by new claim 21.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the specification as filed, fails to disclose the limitation “wherein a third portion of the third lens is concave, the third portion of the third lens separated from the second portion of the third lens by the first portion of the third lens” in such a manner that would reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
526
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The applicant points to Figs. 4-5 and paragraphs [0085]-[0086] as providing support for the claim amendments. Figs. 4-5 show cross-sections of the lenses. Consistent with paragraphs [0085]-[0086] one can observe the newly added features from claims 1 and 15 as noted in the examiner’s markup of a portion of Fig. 4 above: “a first portion of a first surface of the third lens, facing the mirror coating layer, is concave (long dashed arrow), wherein a first portion of a second surface of the third lens, facing the display, is convex (solid arrow), and wherein a second portion of the second surface of the third lens is concave (dotted arrows).”
However, what appears in cross-section as if it might be two portions that are concave, separated by the first portion, is actually only one portion because of the radial symmetry of the lens. See the equation for the aspheric surfaces in paragraph [0100] which only has terms dependent on “y” which is the distance in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis (i.e. the radial direction). Thus, the specification does not support “wherein a third portion of the third lens is concave, the third portion of the third lens separated from the second portion of the third lens by the first portion of the third lens” under the reasonable assumption that such a third portion would have to be on the same surface of the third lens as the first and second portions.
This analysis is complicated by the lack of consistency in nomenclature between claims 21 and claim 1, where claim 1 introduced two first portions, one on the first surface of the third lens and one on the second surface of the third lens, but where claim 21 does not specify which first portion is being discussed. However, the examiner could not come up with any interpretation of claim 21 where the first portion was the first portion of the first surface of the third lens that would be supported by the specification as filed either.
For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 21 will be interpreted in terms of the feature of Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0085]-[0086] that corresponds to the first portion of the second surface of the third lens having concave portions on either side thereof when considered in cross-section. In particular, the examiner recommends the following amendment to capture this feature:
21 (proposed amendment) “The lens assembly of claim 1, wherein the second surface of the third lens [[by]] surrounds the first portion of the second surface of the third lens.”
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 20 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “wherein the wearable electronic device is a visual see-through (VST)-type wearable electronic device” is indefinite in light of the specification, because the acronym VST is used to describe both a video see-through device and a visual see-through device. In particular, paragraph [0053] discloses: “the VST-type VR glasses may capture the external environment by a camera (not shown) and display the captured external environment image, along with VR content, to the user through the display D” while paragraph [0211] merely introduces the claim language “the wearable electronic device may be of a visual see-through (VST) type.” without explanation. On the other hand, paragraph [0050] discusses how a waveguide might be introduced to allow a true see-through AR arrangement. Thus it is entirely unclear whether “visual see-through” is a typographical error, and should have been “video see-through” like paragraph [0053] or if this is an unfortunate overlap of acronyms and claim 20 is directed to the type of device where the display is not blocking the view of the environment such as that described in paragraph [0050]. If “video see-through display” was the intended limitation, appropriately amending the claim from visual to video is needed. If a true see-through display is the intended limitation, then the term “visual” and the acronym VST should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of applying prior art any augmented or mixed reality systems will be considered to meet the claim, because they present both a view of the environment and overlaid images, which would necessarily qualify as one or the other of a visual see-through display or a video see-through display, depending on how the effect was achieved.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitation "the first portion of the third lens" in line 3. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because claim 1 introduced two first portions of the third lens, one on each of the first and second surfaces thereof. Additionally, although only one second portion of the third lens was introduced in claim 1, it would improve the clarity of claim 21 to refer to the second portion of the third lens as “the second portion of the second surface of the third lens”. Appropriate correction is required, such as the proposed amendment above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are allowed.
Claims 20 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reference will be made to Shi WO 2024/244273 A1 (hereafter Shi, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation), Chen et al. US 2024/0176116 A1 (hereafter Chen) and Chen et al. US 2024/0027731 A1 (hereafter Chen 731) as the closest prior art documents.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a second lens having a positive refractive power and being movable in position with respect to an optical axis; and
a third lens having a positive refractive power and being movable in position with respect to the optical axis together with the second lens… wherein a mirror coating layer is disposed on one surface, which is configured to face a display, of at least one of the second lens”.
In particular, regarding claim 1, Shi teaches (Fig. 1) “A lens assembly (the optical module of Fig. 1) comprising:
a first lens (third lens 5) having a positive refractive power (page 2 fifth paragraph of the summary of the invention “the optical power of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens is Is positive.”) and a fixed position (none of the lenses are moving);
a second lens (second lens 4) having a positive refractive power (page 2 fifth paragraph of the summary of the invention “the optical power of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens is Is positive.”)… and
a third lens (first lens 3) having a positive refractive power (page 2 fifth paragraph of the summary of the invention “the optical power of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens is Is positive.”)…
wherein a first film layer (composite film 8) is disposed between the first lens and the second lens (see Fig. 1 8 is on surface 51 of the third lens 5, between lenses 5 and 4),
wherein a mirror coating layer (beam splitter/light splitting element 7 which is a mirror because it is a “a semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film)” see page 10 line 21) is disposed on one surface, which is configured to face a display, of at least one of the second lens (see Fig. 1 and page 10 lines 21-22: “the light splitting element 7 (eg, a semi-transmissive and semi-reflective film) is disposed on the third surface 41” where 41 is the display side surface of the second lens 4),
wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are sequentially disposed along the optical axis from a user’s eye side to a display side (from left to right in Fig. 1), and
wherein the mirror coating layer is disposed on a convex surface of the second lens (surface 41 is convex, see Fig. 1 and negative radius of curvature in Table 1), …
wherein a first portion of a second surface of the third lens, facing the display, is convex (the peripheral portion of surface 31 is convex), and
wherein a second portion of the second surface of the third lens is concave (the paraxial region of surface 31 is concave, see Fig. 1 and positive radius of curvature in Table 1).”
However, Shi fails to teach “wherein a first portion of a first surface of the third lens, facing the mirror coating layer, is concave,” instead teaching a first surface that is flat, which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of flat (infinite radius) which is so close to the claimed range of concave (finite positive radius) that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the curvature of the first surface of the third lens such that it was slightly concave, rather than strictly flat, since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
However, Shi fails to teach “a first lens having … a fixed position;
a second lens… being movable in position with respect to an optical axis; and
a third lens… being movable in position with respect to the optical axis together with the second lens.”
Chen teaches (claim 1) (fourth embodiment Figs. 4A,4B Tables 13-16) “A lens assembly (fourth embodiment Figs. 4A,4B Tables 13-16) comprising:
a first lens (first lens 410) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0136]: “410 with positive refractive power”) and a fixed position (410 is part of E1 paragraph [0132]: “When the focus of the optical lens assembly is changed from a far point to a near point, the first element group E1 and the third element group E3 do not move”);
a second lens (third lens 430) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0140]: “430 with positive refractive power”) and being movable in position with respect to an optical axis (430 is part of E2 paragraph [0132]: “When the focus of the optical lens assembly is changed from a far point to a near point… the second element group E2 moves from the visual side to the image source side”); and
a third lens (fourth lens 440) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0141]: “440 with a positive refractive power”) and being movable in position with respect to the optical axis together with the second lens (440 is part of E2 paragraph [0132]: “When the focus of the optical lens assembly is changed from a far point to a near point… the second element group E2 moves from the visual side to the image source side”),
wherein a first film layer (optical element 460, see paragraph [0143]: “the configuration of the optical element 460 is the same as that of the optical element 160 of the first embodiment” see paragraph [0083]. This is a film layer in that each part thereof is only 0.1 mm thick see Table 13) is disposed between the first lens and the second lens (460 is surfaces 5-7 between the first lens 410 and the third lens 430 in Fig. 4A and Table 13),
wherein a mirror coating layer (partial-reflective-partial-transmissive element 470, which is a mirror layer in that it is partially reflective, and is a coating layer in that it has a thickness of 0.1 mm in Table 13) is disposed on one surface (the display side surface of 440), which is configured to face a display (the display side surface of 440)…
wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are sequentially disposed along the optical axis from a user’s eye side to a display side (410, 430 and 440 are sequentially disposed on the optical axis from the eye side to the image source. Note, that sequentially disposed does not preclude the presence of other optical elements or lenses, just that the lenses are not arranged out of order. If the applicant intends to limit the claim to only three lenses with non-zero refractive power, that would need to be recited more explicitly.)…
a convex surface of the second lens (paragraph [0140]: “the image source-side surface 432 of the third lens 430 is convex in a paraxial region thereof”),
wherein a first portion of a first surface of the third lens… is concave (paragraph [0141]: “the visual-side surface 441 of the fourth lens 440 is concave in a paraxial region thereof”),
wherein a first portion of a second surface of the third lens, facing the display, is convex (paragraph [0141]: “the image source-side surface 442 of the fourth lens 440 is convex in a paraxial region thereof”)…”
However, although Chen would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to attempt to modify Shi such that a diopter adjustment could be incorporated, Chen does not specifically teach moving a second and third lens together where there is a mirror surface on the second lens between the second and third lenses. The optical path through the lens system in Chen is significantly different than that of Shi, such that it would not have been obvious from the teachings of Chen to modify Shi such that the third lens is movable in position with respect to the optical axis together with the second lens as claimed.
That this is non-obvious is further evidenced by Chen 731. Chen 731 has the same three inventors as Chen, and is considered to teach variations on the same inventive concept. Unlike Chen, Chen 731 does teach embodiments such as Figs. 3A,B and 4A,B where a mirror coating layer (partial-reflective-partial-transmissive element 370 or 470) is disposed on one surface, which is configured to face a display, of at least one of the second lens (320 or 420). However, when choosing how to move the lenses to provide a diopter adjustment, Chen 731 teaches keeping the second lens 320/420 fixed, and only moving the lenses to the display side of 320/420 for diopter adjustment. This is substantial evidence that an ordinary skilled artisan would not have chosen to move the second and third lenses together in the configuration of Shi (and the claim) where there is a mirror coating layer on the display-side of the second lens.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and are allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and would be allowed for at least the reason stated above, if the 35 USC §112 rejections above are overcome.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a second lens having a positive refractive power and repositionable with respect to the optical axis, and
a third lens having a positive refractive power and repositionable together with the second lens with respect to the optical axis, and wherein the second lens is disposed between the first lens and the third lens, wherein a mirror coating layer is disposed on a convex surface of the second lens.” These are substantially the same features explained with respect to claim 1 and are allowable for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 15 and are allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Claim 20 depends from claim 15 and would be allowed for at least the reason stated above, if the 35 USC §112 rejection above is overcome.
Response to Arguments
The examiner’s responses to the remarks filed June 2, 2026 are as follows.
In section I on page 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the status of the claims and points to Figs. 4-5 and paragraphs [0085]-[0086] as providing support for the claim amendments and new claim 20. The examiner agrees that amended claims 1 and 15 are supported by the application as filed, however, as noted in the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of claim 21 above, the examiner does not agree that new claim 21 is supported.
In section III on pages 9-10 of the applicant’s remarks filed 6/2/2026 the applicant notes the clarifications and corrections made in the replacement drawings and argues that neither a waveguide, nor a visual see-through type display need to be illustrated because a drawing is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter. The examiner agrees that the replacement drawings overcome most of the drawing objections of the previous office action. The examiner has further withdrawn the drawing objection with respect to the waveguide and see-through type display, because these are indeed routine and conventional within the near-eye display art.
In section IV on page 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant explains how TTL and Tdiopter should be interpreted and argues that there is no indefiniteness issue raised by these parameters. Given that the limitation 1.55 < Tdiopter/TTL has been deleted from claim 1, the question of indefiniteness is no longer pertinent. With respect to the specification, there are still issues to be resolved.
Now that, guided by the clarifications from the applicant with respect to the interpretation of TTL, the examiner has determined that the values in Table 7 for TTL/ImgH can be reproduced using the physical thickness on axis for TTL and a full diagonal height for ImgH. This disambiguates both the meaning of TTL and the meaning of ImgH, and provides substantial evidence that the values in Table 1 and 4 are not in error. Thus, it is now possible for the applicant to correct the values of Tdiopter/TTL in Table 7, to be consistent with the detailed parameters disclosed in Tables 1 and 4. No new matter would be raised by such a correction, because the interpretations chosen by the applicant for Tdiopter and TTL are consistent with the usage within the field, and such new values are supported by original tables 1 and 4.
Under section V on page 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the 35 USC §112(b) rejections of claims 1-14, 16 and 20 have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees that the 35 USC §112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 and 16 have been overcome. However, the rejection of claim 20 has not been addressed.
Under sections VI to X on pages 11 to 19 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the prior art rejections have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. These arguments are moot because the prior art rejections have been withdrawn, and claims 1-15 and 17-19 have been indicated as allowed for the reasons explained above.
The request for an interview with the examiner in section XI on page 19 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.” In particular, although the examiner fully expects that the applicant will be able to overcome all of the above issues, the nature and number of the outstanding issues are such that it will take both time and attention to detail to determine the best corrections for these issues.
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights