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. 18/837,874 filed on August 12, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted September 8, 2026 in response to the office action mailed June 22, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-10 are pending and amended at least by the amendments to independent claims 1, 6 and 9.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. US 2019/0353897 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki 2019) in view of Suzuki et al. WO 2019/065245 A1 (where reference will be made to Suzuki et al. US 2021/0173199 as the English language equivalent, hereafter Suzuki 199).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki 2019 teaches “An image projection device (image projection device 100) comprising:
a light source (light source 20);
a scanning unit (at least scan mirror 28) that scans a light beam emitted from the light source (paragraph [0039]: “The scan mirror 28 two-dimensionally scans the laser light 50”); and
an optical system (at least collimator lens 22, mirror 26 and projection mirror 30) that converges a plurality of light beams (it is the function of all of the optical elements together that converges the plurality of light beams see Fig. 1), which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times (paragraph [0039]: “The scan mirror 28 two-dimensionally scans the laser light 50” thus light emitted at different times is directed in different directions by the scan mirror), the optical system including a reflection mirror (mirror 26)… a projection mirror (projection mirror 30) and reflected to [a] convergence point in an eye of a user (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0042]: “The laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28 converges near the pupil 64,”) and then irradiates a retina of the user with the plurality of light beams to project an image (see Fig. 1 and e.g. paragraph [0040]: “The projection mirror 30 illuminates the retina 62 of the eyeball 60 of the user with the laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28, to project an image onto the retina 62.”),
wherein diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on a cornea of the user are 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less (paragraph [0038] “The diameter of the opening 36 is designed such that the laser light 50 falls within the range of 350 μm to 700 μm when the laser light 50 enters a cornea 68 of the eyeball 60 of the user. The opening 36 of the diameter adjustment unit 24 may be fixed at a certain size, or may be variable in size.” and paragraph [0044]: “the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 was 310 μm, … where the diameter was 470 μm” see also paragraph [0050]. Note that 350 μm to 700 μm is 0.35 mm to 0.7 mm) and a half angle of a larger one of a horizontal angle of view and a vertical angle of view of an area where the retina is irradiated with the plurality of light beams at the convergence point is 10° or greater and 30° or less (paragraph [0043]: “The image projected onto the retina 62 is an image that has a horizontal viewing angle of 20 degrees, a screen aspect ratio of 16:9” thus the horizontal angle of view is the larger angle of view and it is 20 degrees which is in the claimed range).”
However, Suzuki 2019 fails to teach “a scanning unit that scans a light beam emitted from the light source; and an optical system that converges a plurality of light beams, which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times, the optical system including a reflection mirror that converges reflected beams to a convergence point in front of a projection mirror and reflected to at a another convergence point in an eye of a user” because Suzuki does not teach “a reflection mirror that converges reflected beams to a convergence point in front of a projection mirror” or that such a converging reflection mirror is downstream for the scanning unit.
Suzuki 199 teaches (Fig. 1) “An image projection device (image projection device 100) comprising:
a light source (light source 10);
a scanning unit (scan mirror 12) that scans a light beam emitted from the light source (e.g. paragraph [0043]: “The scan mirror 12 two-dimensionally scans the laser beam 40 emitted from the light source 10 to convert it into a scan light 42.”); and
an optical system (see elements thereof that follow) that converges a plurality of light beams (see convergence points 60 and 62), which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times (that is how scanning works), the optical system including a reflection mirror (reflection mirror 22) that converges reflected beams to a convergence point (convergence point 60, paragraph [0046]: “The scan light 42 is reflected by the reflection mirror 22, converges at a convergence point 60”) in front of a projection mirror (projection mirror 24, paragraph [0046]: “The scan light 42 is reflected by the reflection mirror 22, converges at a convergence point 60, and then is emitted to the projection mirror 24”) and reflected to another convergence point in an eye of a user (convergence point 62 paragraph [0046]: “the projection mirror 24 is an example of a first light converging unit that converges the scan light 42 at the convergence point 62 in the vicinity of the pupil 54”) and then irradiates a retina of the user (paragraph [0046]: “and then irradiates the retina 52 with the scan light 42”) with the plurality of light beams to project an image (image projection device 100).”
Suzuki 199 further teaches a comparative example, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0052], [0057] and [0058]: “FIG. 3 is a view of an image projection device according to a first comparative example as viewed from above. As illustrated in FIG. 3, in an image projection device 500 of the first comparative example, the projection optical system 20 includes a reflection mirror 82 instead of the reflection mirror 22. The reflection mirror 82 is a planar mirror or a substantially planar mirror. Therefore, the scan light 42 is reflected by the reflection mirror 82, and it is then emitted to the projection mirror 24 with almost no convergence. Other structures are the same as those of the first embodiment, and the description thereof is thus omitted…
Moreover, in the first embodiment, the reflection mirror 22 is merely provided instead of the reflection mirror 82, as compared with the first comparative example. For this reason, it is possible to project the good-quality image while suppressing an increase in the number of components and an increase in the size of the image projection device.
Moreover, according to the first embodiment, in the laser beam 40, the bending angle at the reflection mirror 22 is substantially the same size as the bending angle at the projection mirror 24. Thereby, the influence of the positive light condensing power of the projection mirror 24 on the laser beam 40 can be effectively canceled by the influence of the positive light condensing power of the reflecting mirror 22 on the laser beam 40.”
Thus, Suzuki 2019 teaches the image projection device of claim 1, except for the mirrors 26 and 28 being two flat mirrors with 28 providing the scanning.
Suzuki 199 teaches that a converging mirror 22 is an improvement over a flat mirror 82 (see paragraph [0052]) and that replacing 82 with 22 makes it possible to project the good-quality image while suppressing an increase in the number of components and an increase in the size of the image projection device and to effectively cancel the influence of the positive light condensing power of the projection mirror 24 (see Suzuki 199 paragraphs [0057]-[0058].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the scanning unit of Suzuki 2019 comprising flat mirrors 26 and 28, with the scanning mirror 12 and the converging mirror 22 of Suzuki 199 because Suzuki 199 teaches that such a converging mirror is an improvement over a flat mirror which makes it possible to project the good-quality image while suppressing an increase in the number of components and an increase in the size of the image projection device and to effectively cancel the influence of the positive light condensing power of the projection mirror 24 (see Suzuki 199 paragraphs [0057]-[0058].
However, Suzuki 2019 fails to explicitly teach “diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on a cornea of the user are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less.” instead teaching a range from 310 μm to 800 μm that encompasses the claimed range.
Suzuki 2019 further teaches (paragraph [0050]): “As can be seen from the actual measurement value results described with reference to FIG. 3, and the simulation results described with reference to FIG. 5, the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 is adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm, so that a visual acuity of 0.4 or higher can be acquired, and focus-free properties can also be acquired. Thus, it is possible to provide users having different original visual acuities with high-quality images.” (emphasis added).
Suzuki 2019 also teaches (paragraph [0042]: “The laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28 converges near the pupil 64, and accordingly, passes through a portion close to the center of the crystalline lens 66. Because of this, the laser light 50 is hardly affected by the lens function (or the power of vision) of the crystalline lens 66, and acquisition of focus-free properties is expected. However, the diameter of the laser light 50 passing through the crystalline lens 66 has a finite value, and therefore, is somewhat affected by the lens function of the crystalline lens 66. For this reason, it is considered that focus-free properties may be difficult to acquire, depending on the diameter of the laser light 50.”
It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
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 opening of the diameter adjustment unit 24 such that the beam diameter incident on a cornea of the user are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less, which overlaps the disclosed range of 310 μm to 800 μm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the light beam diameter is an art recognized results effective variable in that it effects whether or not the laser light is affected by the power of the crystalline lens of the user as taught by Suzuki 2019 so that high-quality images will be properly projected to the retinas of users having different original visual acuities (paragraphs [0042]-[0050]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the beam diameter incident on the cornea of the user because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Suzuki teaches that beam diameters of 310 μm and 470 μm that closely encompass the claimed range of 0.36 to 0.46 mm are experimentally verified as obtaining the desired focus-free properties as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 3, the Suzuki 2019 – Suzuki 199 combination teaches “The image projection device according to claim 1,” and Suzuki 2019 further teaches “wherein numerical apertures of the plurality of light beams when entering the cornea of the user are approximately zero (paragraph [0044]: “It should be noted that the numerical aperture (NA) of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 was −0.001 to 0”) regardless of the user (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “Therefore, in the first embodiment, the diameter adjustment unit 24 is disposed in the light path for the laser light 50 between the collimator lens 22 and the scan mirror 28, so that the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 is adjusted to a value not smaller than 310 μm and not greater than 800 μm by the diameter adjustment unit 24… Thus, it is possible to provide users having different original visual acuities with high-quality images.”).”
Regarding claim 4, the Suzuki 2019 – Suzuki 199 combination teaches “The image projection device according to claim 1,” however, Suzuki 2019 fails to explicitly teach “wherein the plurality of light beams incident on the cornea of the user have diameters of 0.38 mm or greater and 0.44 mm or less.”
It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
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 opening of the diameter adjustment unit 24 such that the beam diameter incident on a cornea of the user are… 0.38 mm or greater and 0.44 mm or less, which overlaps the disclosed range of 310 μm to 800 μm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the light beam diameter is an art recognized results effective variable in that it effects whether or not the laser light is affected by the power of the crystalline lens of the user as taught by Suzuki 2019 so that high-quality images will be properly projected to the retinas of users having different original visual acuities (paragraphs [0042]-[0050]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the beam diameter incident on the cornea of the user because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Suzuki teaches that beam diameters of 310 μm and 470 μm that closely encompass the claimed range of 0.36 to 0.46 mm are experimentally verified as obtaining the desired focus-free properties as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, the Suzuki 2019 – Suzuki 199 combination teaches “The image projection device according to claim 1,” and Suzuki 2019 further teaches “wherein the plurality of light beams are monochromatic light beams of red light beams, green light beams, or blue light beams (paragraph [0035]: “The light source 20 may be a light source formed by integrating laser diode chips of red, green, and blue (RGB)” where the light from laser diodes would normally be considered to be monochromatic.), or combined light beams obtained by combining at least two of a red light beam, a green light beam, and a blue light beam (paragraph [0035]: “The light source 20 may be a light source formed by integrating laser diode chips of red, green, and blue (RGB) and a tricolor combining device” emphasis added).”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. US 2019/0353897 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki 2019) in view of Suzuki et al. WO 2019/065245 A1 (where reference will be made to Suzuki et al. US 2021/0173199 as the English language equivalent, hereafter Suzuki 199) as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Suzuki et al. WO 2021/199762 A1 (hereafter Suzuki 2021, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation) and Suzuki et al. JP 2020-170118 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki JP259 where reference will be made to the machine translation provided by the applicant).
Regarding claim 2, the Suzuki 2019 – Suzuki 199 combination teaches “The image projection device according to claim 1,” and Suzuki 2019 further teaches “wherein the plurality of light beams have diameters of 55 μm or greater and 77 μm or less on the retina (The Maxwellian set-up of Suzuki 2019 and the instant application are substantially the same. The diameter of the light at the cornea has been modified for claim 1 to be within the claimed range. The numerical aperture is approximately zero, see paragraph [0044], and the light entering the cornea is substantially parallel, see paragraph [0044]. This can be compared to the instant application which discloses the diameter of the light beam at the cornea, see claim 1, a numerical aperture of approximately zero, see claim 3, and the light entering the cornea is substantially parallel, see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] of the specification as filed: “the light beams 40 reflected by the projection mirror 34 become substantially parallel light.” Therefor, the beam spot size on the retina of the user of Suzuki 2019 and the instant application must be the same. In both instances parallel light beams with the same beam diameters at the cornea are converged by the crystalline lens onto the retina.).”
That this inherency analysis is correct is further evidenced by Suzuki 2021 which teaches (page 6, first paragraph): “FIG. 6 is a diagram showing the relationship between the diameter of light rays at the time of corneal incident and the diameter of light rays on the retina. With reference to FIG. 6, the larger the diameter of the ray 60 at the time of corneal incident, the smaller the diameter of the ray 60 on the retina 74. It can be seen that the diameter (spot diameter) of the light ray 60 on the retina 74 can be made 25 μm or less by setting the diameter of the light ray 60 at the time of corneal incident to 1.25 mm or more. The larger the diameter of the light ray 60 at the time of incident on the cornea, the smaller the diameter of the light ray 60 on the retina 74 is that there is a crystalline lens 72 on the retina side of the cornea, and the cornea and the crystalline lens 72 act as a convex lens to collect positive light.”
Although Suzuki 2021 does not graph the retinal spot diameter for corneal beam diameters less than 1 mm, Suzuki establishes that there is an inverse functional relationship between the two.
Suzuki JP259 teaches (paragraph [0063]): “when the diameters of the light beams incident on the corneas of the eyeballs 80 of the user from the image projecting device 50 is about 0.5mm, the spot diameters on the retinas 82 are about 40 μ m.” From there it is a short extrapolation to the spot diameters that would result from beam diameters at the cornea of the claimed range.
Lastly, that the retinal spot diameter is strictly a function of the corneal beam diameter can be seen from Figs. 7A-7D of the instant application, where for example, at an angle of 20° and a corneal beam diameter of 0.4 mm the spot diameter was relatively constant as a function of axial length from about 63 μm to about 68 μm.
Thus, the configuration of Suzuki 2019 as detailed above with beam diameters at the cornea of 0.36 to 0.46 mm will inherently result in spot diameters on the retina of 55 μm or greater and 77 μm or less as claimed for some reasonable axial diameter of the user.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. US 2020/0229694 A1 (hereafter Yasui) in view of Suzuki et al. US 2019/0353897 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki 2019).
Regarding claim 6, Yasui teaches “A vision test device (second embodiment, paragraph [0066]: “a visual sense examination device 200 according to the second embodiment further includes an input unit 42, as compared with the visual sense examination device 100 according to the first embodiment.”) comprising:
a light source (beam source 11);
a scanning unit (scanning units 20 and 22) that scans a light beam emitted from the light source (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “the visible laser beam 50a is reflected by a plane mirror 21 and is scanned two-dimensionally by the scanning unit 20… The infrared laser beam 50b is reflected by a plane mirror 23 and is scanned two-dimensionally by the scanning unit 22.”);
an optical system (at least lens 25 and lens 27) that converges a plurality of light beams (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “the visible laser beam 50a converges near a crystalline lens 72… The infrared laser beam 50b converges near the crystalline lens 72), which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times (that’s how scanning works), at a convergence point in an eye of a subject (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “the visible laser beam 50a converges near a crystalline lens 72… The infrared laser beam 50b converges near the crystalline lens 72) and then irradiates the retina of the subject with the plurality of light beams (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “The visible laser beam 50a converges near a crystalline lens 72, passes through a vitreous body 76, and is emitted to the retina 74… The infrared laser beam 50b converges near the crystalline lens 72, passes through the vitreous body 76, and is emitted to the retina 74”), each retinal region of the retina being irradiated by one of the plurality of light beams (paragraph [0071]: “When steps S50 and S52 are repeatedly performed, for example, the examination visual target 65a of FIG. 10A is projected and several seconds elapse, an examination visual target 65b is then projected on another region of the retina 74 as illustrated in FIG. 10B and several seconds further elapse, and then an examination visual target 65c is projected on still another region of the retina 74 as illustrated in FIG. 10C.” thus different retinal regions are irradiated at different times with different light beams amongst the plurality of light beams); and
an input unit (input unit 42) to which a response signal (e.g. paragraph [0070]: “The subject operates the input unit 42 when recognizing that the examination visual target 65a is projected on the retina 74.” and paragraph [0074]: “FIG. 11B illustrates the visual field defect image. Dotted lines indicate parts 66 where the subject has not input a response to the input unit 42 even though the examination visual target 65 has been projected on the retina 74.” These responses by the subject are response signals.) corresponding to each retinal region being irradiated by one of the plurality of light beams applied to the retina is input (e.g. paragraph [0070]: “The subject operates the input unit 42 when recognizing that the examination visual target 65a is projected on the retina 74.” and paragraph [0074]: “FIG. 11B illustrates the visual field defect image. Dotted lines indicate parts 66 where the subject has not input a response to the input unit 42 even though the examination visual target 65 has been projected on the retina 74.” See also paragraph [0071].),
wherein diameters of the plurality of light beams are (paragraphs [0091]-[0092]: “The visible beam adjustment unit 91 includes a collimate lens, a toric lens and/or an aperture having characteristics suitable for the visible beam, and hence the visible laser beam 51a is adjusted to a suitable numerical aperture (NA) and/or a suitable beam diameter… The invisible beam adjustment unit 93 includes a collimate lens, a toric lens and/or an aperture having characteristics suitable for the invisible beam such as the infrared light, and hence the invisible laser beam 51b is adjusted to a suitable numerical aperture (NA) and/or a suitable beam diameter.” emphasis added).
However, Yasui fails to explicitly teach “diameters of the plurality of light beams are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less and a half angle of a larger one of a horizontal angle of view and a vertical angle of view of an area where the retina is irradiated with the plurality of light beams at the convergence point is 10° or greater and 30° or less.”
Suzuki 2019 teaches (claim 6) “A… device (image projection device 100) comprising:
a light source (light source 20);
a scanning unit (at least scan mirror 28) that scans a light beam emitted from the light source (paragraph [0039]: “The scan mirror 28 two-dimensionally scans the laser light 50”);
an optical system (at least collimator lens 22, mirror 26 and projection mirror 30) that converges a plurality of light beams (it is the function of all of the optical elements together that converges the plurality of light beams see Fig. 1), which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times (paragraph [0039]: “The scan mirror 28 two-dimensionally scans the laser light 50” thus light emitted at different times is directed in different directions by the scan mirror), at a convergence point in an eye of a subject (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0042]: “The laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28 converges near the pupil 64,”) and then irradiates the retina of the subject with the plurality of light beams (see Fig. 1 and e.g. paragraph [0040]: “The projection mirror 30 illuminates the retina 62 of the eyeball 60 of the user with the laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28, to project an image onto the retina 62.”); and…
wherein diameters of the plurality of light beams are 0.36 mm or greater and
0.46 mm or less (paragraph [0038] “The diameter of the opening 36 is designed such that the laser light 50 falls within the range of 350 μm to 700 μm when the laser light 50 enters a cornea 68 of the eyeball 60 of the user. The opening 36 of the diameter adjustment unit 24 may be fixed at a certain size, or may be variable in size.” and paragraph [0044]: “the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 was 310 μm, … where the diameter was 470 μm” see also paragraph [0050]. Note that 350 μm to 700 μm is 0.35 mm to 0.7 mm) and a half angle of a larger one of a horizontal angle of view and a vertical angle of view of an area where the retina is irradiated with the plurality of light beams at the convergence point is 10° or greater and 30° or less (paragraph [0043]: “The image projected onto the retina 62 is an image that has a horizontal viewing angle of 20 degrees, a screen aspect ratio of 16:9” thus the horizontal angle of view is the larger angle of view and it is 20 degrees which is in the claimed range).”
Suzuki 2019 further teaches (paragraph [0050]): “As can be seen from the actual measurement value results described with reference to FIG. 3, and the simulation results described with reference to FIG. 5, the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 is adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm, so that a visual acuity of 0.4 or higher can be acquired, and focus-free properties can also be acquired. Thus, it is possible to provide users having different original visual acuities with high-quality images.” (emphasis added).
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 diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 to be adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm as taught by Suzuki 2019 in the vision test device of Yasui so that users having different original visual acuities can receive the same high-quality images as taught by Suzuki 2019 (paragraph [0050]). The result, naturally flowing from this combination of references, is that the visual field defects of subjects having different visual acuities can be tested with the same set-up, because the visual targets emitted to the retina will appear the same.
However, Suzuki 2019 fails to explicitly teach “diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on a cornea of the user are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less.” instead teaching a range from 310 μm to 800 μm that encompasses the claimed range.
Suzuki 2019 further teaches (paragraph [0050]): “As can be seen from the actual measurement value results described with reference to FIG. 3, and the simulation results described with reference to FIG. 5, the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 is adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm, so that a visual acuity of 0.4 or higher can be acquired, and focus-free properties can also be acquired. Thus, it is possible to provide users having different original visual acuities with high-quality images.” (emphasis added).
Suzuki 2019 also teaches (paragraph [0042]: “The laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28 converges near the pupil 64, and accordingly, passes through a portion close to the center of the crystalline lens 66. Because of this, the laser light 50 is hardly affected by the lens function (or the power of vision) of the crystalline lens 66, and acquisition of focus-free properties is expected. However, the diameter of the laser light 50 passing through the crystalline lens 66 has a finite value, and therefore, is somewhat affected by the lens function of the crystalline lens 66. For this reason, it is considered that focus-free properties may be difficult to acquire, depending on the diameter of the laser light 50.”
It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
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 beam diameter incident on a cornea of the subject are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less, which overlaps the disclosed range of 310 μm to 800 μm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the light beam diameter is an art recognized results effective variable in that it effects whether or not the laser light is affected by the power of the crystalline lens of the user as taught by Suzuki 2019 so that high-quality images will be properly projected to the retinas of users having different original visual acuities (paragraphs [0042]-[0050]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the beam diameter incident on the cornea of the subject of Yasui because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Suzuki teaches that beam diameters of 310 μm and 470 μm that closely encompass the claimed range of 0.36 to 0.46 mm are experimentally verified as obtaining the desired focus-free properties as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 8, the Yasui – Suzuki 2019 combination teaches “The vision test device according to claim 6,” and Yasui further teaches “wherein the subject responds to each of the plurality of light beams sequentially applied to the retina by operating the input unit (e.g. paragraph [0070]: “The subject operates the input unit 42 when recognizing that the examination visual target 65a is projected on the retina 74.” and paragraph [0074]: “FIG. 11B illustrates the visual field defect image. Dotted lines indicate parts 66 where the subject has not input a response to the input unit 42 even though the examination visual target 65 has been projected on the retina 74.”).”
Regarding claim 9, Yasui teaches “A fundus photography device (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “The state of a fundus of the eye 70 can be detected (state information of the fundus can be obtained) based on the detection result of the luminance change of the infrared laser beam 50b by the detector 40, and a fundus image can be obtained as an example of a detection object.” see also fundus images in Figs. 5, 11A and 11C) comprising:
a light source (beam source 11);
a scanning unit (scanning units 20 and 22) that scans a light beam emitted from the light source (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “he visible laser beam 50a is reflected by a plane mirror 21 and is scanned two-dimensionally by the scanning unit 20… The infrared laser beam 50b is reflected by a plane mirror 23 and is scanned two-dimensionally by the scanning unit 22.”);
an optical system (at least lens 25 and lens 27) that converges a plurality of light beams (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “the visible laser beam 50a converges near a crystalline lens 72… The infrared laser beam 50b converges near the crystalline lens 72), which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times (that’s how scanning works), at a convergence point in an eye of a subject (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “the visible laser beam 50a converges near a crystalline lens 72… The infrared laser beam 50b converges near the crystalline lens 72) and then irradiates a retina of the subject with the plurality of light beams (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]: “The visible laser beam 50a converges near a crystalline lens 72, passes through a vitreous body 76, and is emitted to the retina 74… The infrared laser beam 50b converges near the crystalline lens 72, passes through the vitreous body 76, and is emitted to the retina 74”), wherein the optical system is configured so that the plurality of light beams is kept at a spot diameter range on the retina throughout the irradiation area for subjects having different axial lengths over a wide area of the retina (Because none of the numerical ranges of the spot diameter range, the range of subject axial lengths or the width of the area of the retina are specified, this limitation is met by Yasui for some range of spot diameters, some variability in the axial lengths of the subjects and some width of the area of the retina. In particular, the device of Yasui has a spot diameter range that may or may not vary as a function of the axial length of the subject, and which is within an acceptable range over some region of the retina.);
a detector (detector 40) that detects the plurality of light beams reflected by the retina (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “the reflected infrared laser beam 50b enters the detector 40 via a half mirror 43 and a lens 44. Thereby, the detector 40 detects the infrared laser beam 50b reflected by the retina 74.”); and
an acquisition unit (signal processing unit 32 and/or image generation unit 33) that acquires a fundus image of the subject from the plurality of light beams detected by the detector (e.g. paragraph [0046]: “The signal processing unit 32 processes an output signal of the detector 40 based on a control signal from the driving control unit 31. The image generation unit 33 generates a two-dimensional image based on the signal processed by the signal processing unit 32.”),
wherein… diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on the cornea of the subject are (paragraphs [0091]-[0092]: “The visible beam adjustment unit 91 includes a collimate lens, a toric lens and/or an aperture having characteristics suitable for the visible beam, and hence the visible laser beam 51a is adjusted to a suitable numerical aperture (NA) and/or a suitable beam diameter… The invisible beam adjustment unit 93 includes a collimate lens, a toric lens and/or an aperture having characteristics suitable for the invisible beam such as the infrared light, and hence the invisible laser beam 51b is adjusted to a suitable numerical aperture (NA) and/or a suitable beam diameter.” emphasis added).”
However, Yasui fails to explicitly teach “wherein, a half angle of a larger one of a horizontal angle of view and a vertical angle of view of an area where the retina is irradiated with the plurality of light beams at the convergence point is 10° or greater and 30° or less, diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on the cornea of the subject are 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less.”
Suzuki 2019 teaches (claim 9) “A… device (image projection device 100) comprising:
a light source (light source 20);
a scanning unit (at least scan mirror 28) that scans a light beam emitted from the light source (paragraph [0039]: “The scan mirror 28 two-dimensionally scans the laser light 50”);
an optical system (at least collimator lens 22, mirror 26 and projection mirror 30) that converges a plurality of light beams (it is the function of all of the optical elements together that converges the plurality of light beams see Fig. 1), which are emitted from the scanning unit at different times (paragraph [0039]: “The scan mirror 28 two-dimensionally scans the laser light 50” thus light emitted at different times is directed in different directions by the scan mirror), at a convergence point in an eye of a subject (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0042]: “The laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28 converges near the pupil 64,”) and then irradiates a retina of the subject with the plurality of light beams (see Fig. 1 and e.g. paragraph [0040]: “The projection mirror 30 illuminates the retina 62 of the eyeball 60 of the user with the laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28, to project an image onto the retina 62.”);
…wherein, a half angle of a larger one of a horizontal angle of view and a vertical angle of view of an area where the retina is irradiated with the plurality of light beams at the convergence point is 10° or greater and 30° or less (paragraph [0043]: “The image projected onto the retina 62 is an image that has a horizontal viewing angle of 20 degrees, a screen aspect ratio of 16:9” thus the horizontal angle of view is the larger angle of view and it is 20 degrees which is in the claimed range), diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on the cornea of the subject are 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less (paragraph [0038] “The diameter of the opening 36 is designed such that the laser light 50 falls within the range of 350 μm to 700 μm when the laser light 50 enters a cornea 68 of the eyeball 60 of the user. The opening 36 of the diameter adjustment unit 24 may be fixed at a certain size, or may be variable in size.” and paragraph [0044]: “the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 was 310 μm, … where the diameter was 470 μm” see also paragraph [0050]. Note that 350 μm to 700 μm is 0.35 mm to 0.7 mm).”
Suzuki 2019 further teaches (paragraph [0050]): “As can be seen from the actual measurement value results described with reference to FIG. 3, and the simulation results described with reference to FIG. 5, the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 is adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm, so that a visual acuity of 0.4 or higher can be acquired, and focus-free properties can also be acquired. Thus, it is possible to provide users having different original visual acuities with high-quality images.” (emphasis added).
An ordinary skilled artisan would be well aware of the optical law that the path of light within an optical system is reversible, such that light will follow exactly the same path when its direction of travel is reversed. Thus such an artisan would recognize that a high quality projected image on the retina by a projection system, when reversed, results in a high-quality detected image of the fundus/retina.
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 diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 to be adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm as taught by Suzuki 2019 in the vision testing/fundus imaging device of Yasui so that users having different original visual acuities can receive the same high-quality images as taught by Suzuki 2019 (paragraph [0050]) and have high-quality fundus images captured thereby. The result, naturally flowing from this combination of references, is that high quality fundus images of subjects having different visual acuities can be obtained with the same set-up.
However, Suzuki 2019 fails to explicitly teach “diameters of the plurality of light beams incident on a cornea of the user are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less.” instead teaching a range from 310 μm to 800 μm that encompasses the claimed range.
Suzuki 2019 further teaches (paragraph [0050]): “As can be seen from the actual measurement value results described with reference to FIG. 3, and the simulation results described with reference to FIG. 5, the diameter of the laser light 50 entering the cornea 68 is adjusted to a value that is not smaller than 310 μm and not larger than 800 μm, so that a visual acuity of 0.4 or higher can be acquired, and focus-free properties can also be acquired. Thus, it is possible to provide users having different original visual acuities with high-quality images.” (emphasis added).
Suzuki 2019 also teaches (paragraph [0042]: “The laser light 50 scanned by the scan mirror 28 converges near the pupil 64, and accordingly, passes through a portion close to the center of the crystalline lens 66. Because of this, the laser light 50 is hardly affected by the lens function (or the power of vision) of the crystalline lens 66, and acquisition of focus-free properties is expected. However, the diameter of the laser light 50 passing through the crystalline lens 66 has a finite value, and therefore, is somewhat affected by the lens function of the crystalline lens 66. For this reason, it is considered that focus-free properties may be difficult to acquire, depending on the diameter of the laser light 50.”
It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
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 beam diameter incident on a cornea of the subject are… 0.36 mm or greater and 0.46 mm or less, which overlaps the disclosed range of 310 μm to 800 μm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the light beam diameter is an art recognized results effective variable in that it effects whether or not the laser light is affected by the power of the crystalline lens of the user as taught by Suzuki 2019 so that high-quality images will be properly projected to the retinas of users having different original visual acuities (paragraphs [0042]-[0050]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the beam diameter incident on the cornea of the subject of Yasui because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Suzuki teaches that beam diameters of 310 μm and 470 μm that closely encompass the claimed range of 0.36 to 0.46 mm are experimentally verified as obtaining the desired focus-free properties as shown in Fig. 3.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui et al. US 2020/0229694 A1 (hereafter Yasui) in view of Suzuki et al. US 2019/0353897 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki 2019) as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and as evidenced by Suzuki et al. WO 2021/199762 A1 (hereafter Suzuki 2021, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation) and Suzuki et al. JP 2020-170118 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki JP259 where reference will be made to the machine translation provided by the applicant).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the Yasui - Suzuki 2019 combinations as introduced for claims 6 and 9 above teach “The vision test device according to claim 6” and “The fundus photography device according to claim 9” and further “wherein the plurality of light beams have diameters of 55 μm or greater and 77 μm or less on the retina (Both Yasui and Suzuki 2019 are configured as a Maxwellian view, see Yasui paragraph [0048] and Suzuki paragraph [0002]. The Maxwellian set-up of Suzuki 2019 and the instant application are substantially the same. The diameter of the light at the cornea has been modified for claims 6 and 9 to be within the claimed range. The numerical aperture is approximately zero, see paragraph [0044], and the light entering the cornea is substantially parallel, see paragraph [0044]. This can be compared to the instant application which discloses the diameter of the light beam at the cornea, see claim 1, a numerical aperture of approximately zero, see claim 3, and the light entering the cornea is substantially parallel, see paragraphs [0032]-[0033] of the specification as filed: “the light beams 40 reflected by the projection mirror 34 become substantially parallel light.” Therefor, the beam spot size on the retina of the user of Suzuki 2019 and the instant application must be the same. In both instances parallel light beams with the same beam diameters at the cornea are converged by the crystalline lens onto the retina.).”
That this inherency analysis is correct is further evidenced by Suzuki 2021 which teaches (page 6, first paragraph): “FIG. 6 is a diagram showing the relationship between the diameter of light rays at the time of corneal incident and the diameter of light rays on the retina. With reference to FIG. 6, the larger the diameter of the ray 60 at the time of corneal incident, the smaller the diameter of the ray 60 on the retina 74. It can be seen that the diameter (spot diameter) of the light ray 60 on the retina 74 can be made 25 μm or less by setting the diameter of the light ray 60 at the time of corneal incident to 1.25 mm or more. The larger the diameter of the light ray 60 at the time of incident on the cornea, the smaller the diameter of the light ray 60 on the retina 74 is that there is a crystalline lens 72 on the retina side of the cornea, and the cornea and the crystalline lens 72 act as a convex lens to collect positive light.”
Although Suzuki 2021 does not graph the retinal spot diameter for corneal beam diameters less than 1 mm, Suzuki establishes that there is an inverse functional relationship between the two.
Suzuki JP259 teaches (paragraph [0063]): “when the diameters of the light beams incident on the corneas of the eyeballs 80 of the user from the image projecting device 50 is about 0.5mm, the spot diameters on the retinas 82 are about 40 μ m.” From there it is a short extrapolation to the spot diameters that would result from beam diameters at the cornea of the claimed range.
Lastly, that the retinal spot diameter is strictly a function of the corneal beam diameter can be seen from Figs. 7A-7D of the instant application, where for example, at an angle of 20° and a corneal beam diameter of 0.4 mm the spot diameter was relatively constant as a function of axial length from about 63 μm to about 68 μm.
Thus, the configuration of Suzuki 2019 as detailed above with beam diameters at the cornea of 0.36 to 0.46 mm will inherently result in spot diameters on the retina of 55 μm or greater and 77 μm or less as claimed for some reasonable axial diameter of the user.
Thus the Yasui – Suzuki 2019 combinations introduced for claims 6 and 9 further teaches “wherein the plurality of light beams have diameters of 55 μm or greater and 77 μm or less on the retina” as claimed in claims 7 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under the heading “35 U.S.C. §112 Rejection” on pages 6 to 7 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees, these rejections are withdrawn.
Under the heading “35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection” on page 7 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the prior art rejections of the previous office action. No specific argument is made on this page.
Under the heading “Independent Claim 1” on pages 8 to 9 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Suzuki US 897 fails to teach the limitations added to independent claim 1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Under the heading “Independent Claim 6” on page 9 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Yasui “does not clearly state that each tested region is irradiated by one individual scanned beam having the applicant's claimed spot diameter” and thus that in the applicant’s vision test device, “a distinguishable operation appears to be one-beam retinal regions and region-specific response.” Although the examiner agrees that Yasui does not disclose a particular spot diameter, this deficiency was rectified by the introduction of Suzuki 2019. With respect to the newly claimed features “each retinal region of the retina being irradiated by one of the plurality of light beams; and an input unit to which a response signal corresponding to each retinal region being irradiated by one of the plurality of light beams”, the examiner finds that these features, are, in fact, taught by Yasui. Similar to the instant application, Yasui conducts a visual field test. Notably, Yasui teaches (paragraph [0071]): “When steps S50 and S52 are repeatedly performed, for example, the examination visual target 65a of FIG. 10A is projected and several seconds elapse, an examination visual target 65b is then projected on another region of the retina 74 as illustrated in FIG. 10B and several seconds further elapse, and then an examination visual target 65c is projected on still another region of the retina 74 as illustrated in FIG. 10C. This is repeatedly performed, and a final examination visual target 65z is projected on the retina 74, as illustrated in FIG. 10D. When the projection of all the examination visual targets 65 has completed (step S54: Yes), the examination using the examination visual targets 65 completes. Thereby, the examination for the visual field defect can be performed, for example.” Thus individual retinal regions are successively scanned and signals from the user are recorded to complete a visual field test.
In the first paragraph of page 10 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant explains the operation of the visual field test in the instant application. No specific argument with respect to the prior art is made in this paragraph.
In the second paragraph of page 10 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the amendments to claim 6 that have been made to capture this feature. No specific argument with respect to the prior art is made in this paragraph.
In the last paragraph of page 10 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Suzuki US ‘897 fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Yasui. As noted above, with respect to the irradiation of successive retinal regions and associated response signals, there is no deficiency that needs curing. With respect to obtaining the claimed spot diameter, the applicant has not presented any specific arguments related to any deficiencies in the previous obviousness finding regarding the spot diameter of Yasui in view of Suzuki US’897.
On page 11 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points to a portion of the instant application that is pertinent to the present amendments to independent claim 9, explains the advantage of the described arrangement and notes the specific amendments that have been made to claim 9. No specific argument with respect to the prior art is made on this page.
In the first paragraph of page 12 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Yasui fails to meet the newly claimed limitations of claim 9 because “Yasui is not concerned with the visual function accuracy by permitting fundus images of different subject to be captured under the same conditions over a wide area of the retina.” This argument is not persuasive for the reasons explained in the rejection above, specifically:
“Because none of the numerical ranges of the spot diameter range, the range of subject axial lengths or the width of the area of the retina are specified, this limitation is met by Yasui for some range of spot diameters, some variability in the axial lengths of the subjects and some width of the area of the retina. In particular, the device of Yasui has a spot diameter range that may or may not vary as a function of the axial length of the subject, and which is within an acceptable range over some region of the retina.”
Under the heading “Dependent Claims” on pages 12 to 13 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness of the claims which depend from claims 1, 6 or 9 has not been made for at least the same reasons argued for claims 1, 6 and 9 above. These arguments have been addressed above.
The request for an interview with the examiner in the last paragraph of page 13 of 14 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability 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.”
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
