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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 13-22 and 24-25 is/are directed to the abstract idea of data manipulation/mathematics. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
As to claims 13-22 and 24-25, the claims are drawn to doing purely math/data manipulation. The method(s) outline(s) a series of math and data steps to be taken. There is no machine (computer or otherwise) claimed, there is nothing to suggest the claim amounts to significantly more than just defining variables, doing math, and manipulating data when interpreting the disclosure of mathematical or measured functions. Claim 13 claim discloses “designing a refraction area”, and “designing a plurality of n optical elements”, which has been interpreted also as a calculation or design.
Dependent claims 14-22 and 24-25 only recite limitations further defining the mental processes and recite further information gathering and creating. These limitations are considered mental processes without significantly more elements to the abstract idea. These additional elements fail to integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole claim 13-22 and 24-25 are not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, 19, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bakaraju (WO 2021159170 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bakaraju discloses a spectacle lens element (Fig 14, [0191], spectacle lens 1400) intended to be worn by a wearer ([0077], spectacle lens wearer), comprising a refraction area (1401) having refractive power based on a prescription for an eye of the wearer ([0194], power profile of the circumscribing region (1403)), and a plurality of n optical elements (1403), at least one of the n optical elements having an optical function of not focusing an image on a retina of an eye of the wearer,
k
t
h
optical element being located domain defined by a closed contour ([0269], layers contain coating on the spectacle lens), k being a positive integer equal or greater than 2 and smaller or equal to n (Fig 14, [0192]), wherein, without taking a potential coating into account, the least one
k
t
h
optical element presents as a standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of at least 0.4 dpt, where sphere values are measured in diopters (see color of element 1502 which has been interpreted as logarithmic axicons or as modified light sword optical elements which have been a particular non-spherical shape. Taking into account part of the modified light within 1502 and summing it up over more than 100 x/y positions leads to a standard deviation of larger than 0.4 dpt), where
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
124
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein H(
x
j
,
y
j
) is a mean optical curve operator at position
x
i
,
y
i
of the
k
t
h
optical element in its domain,
Ĥ
D
k
is the mean of the mean optical curvatures over the whole domain of the
k
t
h
optical element, and
N
D
k
is an integer number of all positions
x
i
,
y
i
in the domain of the
k
t
h
optical element and is greater than 100 (Fig 15, [0194]-[0195]).
Examiner notes a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Regarding claim 3, Bakaraju discloses wherein at least the
k
t
h
optical element is of non-spherical shape (Fig 5 shows a curved shape within single vision spectacle lens 501, 502, and 503).
Regarding claim 7, Bakaraju discloses wherein the
k
t
h
optical element presents a rotational symmetry (Fig 5a, [0105], rotationally asymmetric elements like the light sword optical element may also be conveniently configured in conjunction with a spectacle lens).
Regarding claim 10, Bakaraju discloses wherein the
k
t
h
optical element is embedded in a substrate forming the refraction area (Fig 5a, [0105], rotationally asymmetric elements like the light sword optical element may also be conveniently configured in conjunction with a spectacle lens).
Regarding claim 13, Bakaraju discloses a method for designing spectacle lens element (Fig 14, [0191], spectacle lens 1400) intended to be worn by a wearer ([0077], spectacle lens wearer), comprising – designing a refraction area (1401) having refractive power based on a prescription for an eye of the wearer ([0194], power profile of the circumscribing region (1403)), and – designing a plurality of n optical elements (1403), at least one of the n optical elements ([0269], layers contain coating on the spectacle lens) having an optical function of not focusing an image on a retina of an eye of the wearer,
k
t
h
optical element being located domain defined by a closed contour, k being a positive integer equal or greater than 2 and smaller or equal to n (Fig 14, [0192]), - wherein, without taking a potential coating into account, the least one
k
t
h
optical element is designed to present as a standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of at least 0.4 dpt, where sphere values are measured in diopters and (see color of element 1502 which has been interpreted as logarithmic axicons or as modified light sword optical elements which have been a particular non-spherical shape. Taking into account part of the modified light within 1502 and summing it up over more than 100 x/y positions leads to a standard deviation of larger than 0.4 dpt) where
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
124
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein H(
x
j
,
y
j
) is a mean optical curve operator at position
x
i
,
y
i
of the
k
t
h
optical element in its domain,
Ĥ
D
k
is the mean of the mean optical curvatures over the whole domain of the
k
t
h
optical element, and
N
D
k
is an integer number of all positions
x
i
,
y
i
in the domain of the
k
t
h
optical element and is greater than 100 (Fig 15, [0194]-[0195]).
Examiner notes a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Regarding claim 15, Bakaraju discloses wherein at least the
k
t
h
optical element is designed of non-spherical shape (Fig 5 shows a curved shape within single vision spectacle lens 501, 502, and 503).
Regarding claim 19, Bakaraju discloses wherein the
k
t
h
optical element is designed to present a rotational symmetry (Fig 5a, [0105], rotationally asymmetric elements like the light sword optical element may also be conveniently configured in conjunction with a spectacle lens).
Regarding claim 22, Bakaraju discloses wherein the
k
t
h
optical element is embedded in a substrate forming the refraction area (Fig 5a, [0105], rotationally asymmetric elements like the light sword optical element may also be conveniently configured in conjunction with a spectacle lens) or wherein the
k
t
h
optical element is designed to protrude at least partly from the refraction area.
Regarding claim 25, Bakaraju discloses further comprising manufacturing the lens based on the designing ([0092], any suitable contact lens manufacturing processes including, but in no way limited to, spin casting, cast molding, and/or turning).
Regarding claim 26, Bakaraju discloses wherein each optical element contains, in its closed contour, zones that are in recess and zones which are protruding from a base surface defined by the refraction area (Fig 5a, [0105], rotationally asymmetric elements like the light sword optical element may also be conveniently configured in conjunction with a spectacle lens).
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.
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(s) 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakaraju (WO 2021159170 A1) in view of Newman (WO 2015147758 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the at least one
k
t
h
optical element presents a standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of at most 20 dpt. However, within a similar endeavor, Newman teaches wherein at the least one
k
t
h
optical element presents a standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of at most 20 dpt ([0089], Fig 19-21, deposited material may have a characteristic that causes it to adhere to the lens body 114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the lens system of Bakaraju with the lens of Newman because both are well known prescription lenses. Bakaraju in view of Newman does not specifically state that the power variation is at most 20 Diopters, however it is well known that a prescribed addition of more than 20 Diopters can be modified to create a desired profile (Newman, [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the optical elements are contiguous. However, Newman teaches wherein the optical elements are contiguous (Fig 18, [0088], shape may be a ring deposited or otherwise formed on the anterior surface 38 of the ocular lens or in an intermediate layer of the lens). It would have been obvious to modify the lens of Bakaraju with the configuration Newman for the purpose of providing desirable optical properties or for convenience within manufacturing of an optical lens (Newman, [0087]).
Regarding claim 9, discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the optical elements are disposed according to a ring pattern. However, Newman teaches wherein the optical elements are disposed according to a ring pattern (Fig 18, [0088], shape may be a ring deposited or otherwise formed on the anterior surface 38 of the ocular lens or in an intermediate layer of the lens). It would have been obvious to modify the lens of Bakaraju with the configuration Newman for the purpose of providing desirable optical properties or for convenience within manufacturing of an optical lens (Newman, [0087]).
Regarding claim 11, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the
k
t
h
optical element protrudes at least partly from the refraction area. However, Newman teaches wherein the
k
t
h
optical element protrudes at least partly from the refraction area (Fig 12, [0083], non-optic region 92 may be positioned over the iris and, in some cases, portions of the conjunctiva and sclera of the eye). It would have been obvious to modify the lens of Bakaraju with the configuration Newman for the purpose of providing desirable optical properties or for convenience within manufacturing of an optical lens (Newman, [0087]).
Regarding claim 12, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 11 and Newman further teaches wherein the standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
is at least 1.3 dpt when taking into account a coating layer ([0089], Fig 19-21, deposited material may have a characteristic that causes it to adhere to the lens body 114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the lens system of Bakaraju with the lens of Newman because both are well known prescription lenses. Bakaraju in view of Newman does not specifically state that the power variation is at least 1.3 dpt, however it is well known that a prescribed addition of more than 1.3 dpt can be modified to create a desired profile (Newman, [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 13 but does not teach wherein the least one
k
t
h
optical element is designed to present a standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of at most 20 dpt. However, , Newman teaches wherein the least one
k
t
h
optical element designed to present a standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of at most 20 dpt ([0089], Fig 19-21, deposited material may have a characteristic that causes it to adhere to the lens body 114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the lens system of Bakaraju with the lens of Newman because both are well known prescription lenses. Bakaraju in view of Newman does not specifically state that the power variation is at most 20 Diopters, however it is well known that a prescribed addition of more than 20 Diopters can be modified to create a desired profile (Newman, [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 13 but does not teach wherein the optical elements are designed to be contiguous. However, Newman teaches wherein the optical elements are designed to be contiguous (Fig 18, [0088], shape may be a ring deposited or otherwise formed on the anterior surface 38 of the ocular lens or in an intermediate layer of the lens). It would have been obvious to modify the lens of Bakaraju with the configuration Newman for the purpose of providing desirable optical properties or for convenience within manufacturing of an optical lens (Newman, [0087]).
Regarding claim 21, discloses the invention as described within claim 13 but does not teach wherein the optical elements are designed to be disposed according to a ring pattern. However, Newman teaches wherein the optical elements are designed to be disposed according to a ring pattern (Fig 18, [0088], shape may be a ring deposited or otherwise formed on the anterior surface 38 of the ocular lens or in an intermediate layer of the lens). It would have been obvious to modify the lens of Bakaraju with the configuration Newman for the purpose of providing desirable optical properties or for convenience within manufacturing of an optical lens (Newman, [0087]).
Regarding claim 24, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 22 and Newman further teaches wherein the standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
is designed to be of at least 1.3 dpt when taking into account a coating layer ([0089], Fig 19-21, deposited material may have a characteristic that causes it to adhere to the lens body 114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the lens system of Bakaraju with the lens of Newman because both are well known prescription lenses. Bakaraju in view of Newman does not specifically state that the power variation is at least 1.3 dpt, however it is well known that a prescribed addition of more than 1.3 dpt can be modified to create a desired profile (Newman, [0076]).
Claim(s) 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakaraju (WO 2021159170 A1) in view of Peyman (20050182489).
Regarding claim 4, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein said structured optical elements are structured in a network and configured such that the standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of an optical element which is closer to a peripheral part of the lens element is higher than that of an optical element which is more distant to the peripheral part of said lens element. However, Peyman teaches wherein said structured optical elements are structured in a network (Fig 6, [0034], grooves 500 can also be ablated into a contact lens 502) and configured such that the standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of an optical element which is closer to a peripheral part of the lens element is higher than that of an optical element which is more distant to the peripheral part of said lens element (Fig 6, [0034], a short pulse laser 506 or any other suitable laser ablates the lens 502 to form the desired groove configuration). It should be noted that the additional claim limitations (standard deviation of sphere values of an optical element is closer to a peripheral part of the lens element) are considered functional limitations which does not distinguish the claim structure from the prior art. Absent showing unobvious structural differences it appears, prima facie, that the prior art Peyman discloses all the claimed structure that is capable of the recited claim functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the lens system of Bakaraju with the optical design of Peyman for the purpose of improving the optical performance within an ophthalmic lens system (Peyman, [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Bakaraju discloses the invention as described within claim 13 but does not teach wherein said structured optical elements are designed to be structured in a network and configured such that the standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of an optical element which is closer to a peripheral part of the lens element is higher than that of an optical element which is more distant to the peripheral part of said lens element. However, Peyman teaches wherein said structured optical elements are designed to be structured in a network (Fig 6, [0034], grooves 500 can also be ablated into a contact lens 502) and configured such that the standard deviation of sphere values
σ
D
k
S
p
h
e
r
e
of an optical element which is closer to a peripheral part of the lens element is higher than that of an optical element which is more distant to the peripheral part of said lens element (Fig 6, [0034], a short pulse laser 506 or any other suitable laser ablates the lens 502 to form the desired groove configuration). It should be noted that the additional claim limitations (standard deviation of sphere values of an optical element is closer to a peripheral part of the lens element) are considered functional limitations which does not distinguish the claim structure from the prior art. Absent showing unobvious structural differences it appears, prima facie, that the prior art Peyman discloses all the claimed structure that is capable of the recited claim functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the lens system of Bakaraju with the optical design of Peyman for the purpose of improving the optical performance within an ophthalmic lens system (Peyman, [0034]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakaraju (WO 2021159170 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bakaraju does not explicitly disclose wherein the absolute value of a mean optical power
M
O
P
k
of the
k
t
h
optical element is less than .25 dpt. However, Bakaraju disclose that each of the refractive areas in each refractive section (shown in [0250], [0270]) may have different refractive powers, and each refraction area corresponds to the wearer’s prescription value (Fig 7, [0169]). Additionally, it has been held that finding the working optimum range is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a mean optical power less than .25 dpt for the purpose of getting the spectacle lens correction as close as possible to the needs of the wearer, and since finding the optimal working range through routine optimization is within the grasp of someone of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Bakaraju discloses wherein the
k
t
h
optical element has positive and negative optical power zones which are counterbalancing each other (Fig 15, [0194], integral base spectacle lens (1501) has a power of approximately -3 D and the regional or auxiliary modified light sword optical elements 1502 is incorporated with a power profile that varies). Additionally, it has been held that finding the working optimum range is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal optical zone for the purpose of getting the spectacle lens correction as close as possible to the needs of the wearer, and since finding the optimal working range through routine optimization is within the grasp of someone of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Bakaraju does not explicitly disclose wherein the absolute value of a mean optical power
M
O
P
k
of the
k
t
h
optical element is designed to be less than .25 dpt. However, Bakaraju disclose that each of the refractive areas in each refractive section (shown in [0250], [0270]) may have different refractive powers, and each refraction area corresponds to the wearer’s prescription value (Fig 7, [0169]). Additionally, it has been held that finding the working optimum range is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a mean optical power less than .25 dpt for the purpose of getting the spectacle lens correction as close as possible to the needs of the wearer, and since finding the optimal working range through routine optimization is within the grasp of someone of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Bakaraju discloses wherein the
k
t
h
optical element is designed to have positive and negative optical power zones which are counterbalancing each other (Fig 15, [0194], integral base spectacle lens (1501) has a power of approximately -3 D and the regional or auxiliary modified light sword optical elements 1502 is incorporated with a power profile that varies). Additionally, it has been held that finding the working optimum range is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal optical zone for the purpose of getting the spectacle lens correction as close as possible to the needs of the wearer, and since finding the optimal working range through routine optimization is within the grasp of someone of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 (a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that amendments providing “designing a plurality of n optical elements” to claim 13 and overcomes 101 rejection, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner currently does not view this action as a physical act, and in this case amounts to a recitation that amounts to instructions, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The fact pattern closely follows In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape. In the instant case the method is to design or calculate the features of a lens element and selecting the best match for a desired lens design. Further, dependent claims 14-22 and 24-25 fail to add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The amended claim language of claims 1, 2, 12, 13-22, and 24-25 have been addressed in the above office action.
The prior art Bakaraju establishes the use of a spectacle lens to provide an extended depth of focus. The remaining arguments refer to the invention previously disclosed in the office action dated 5/12/2026.
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 Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights