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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argument (MPEP 2143/ prima facie “deficient” rationale). Applicant’s argument: Applicant asserts the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and violated MPEP 2143, because the Office did not properly resolve the Graham inquires and dis not show the modification is a “simple substitution… to obtain predictable results.”
Response: The rejection properly established a prima facie case of obviousness. The Office Action identified the claimed subject matter, identified the teaching of the applied references, identified the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and provided a reasoned rationale to combine the references consistent with KSR. An obviousness rationale does not require the rigid “simple substitution” framing urged by applicant, nor does it require an express teaching of the combination in the references. Rather, the Office’s rationale may be supported by the references, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the predictable results of applying known techniques to known devices. Here, Wang teaches the claimed two-group projection lens configuration including the claimed lens counts/power and EFL range, and Cheng teaches high transmittance at 365 nm. The Office articulated that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt the Wang projection lens for ultraviolet applications using the transmittance performance taught by Cheng to achieve improved UV transmission performance. Accordingly, Applicant has not shown any deficiency in the Office’s prima facie case.
(B) Applicant argument (Different wavelength bands (non-obvious). Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues Wang operates in visible/infrared and Cheng relates to short wavelength (e.g. UV), and therefore it would be non-obvious to modify Wang according to Cheng. Applicant further argues that differences in refractive index/Abbe number charts show the materials are “distinct” requiring a different lens design.
Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because operating wavelength is a known design parameter in optical system design and does not render the applied teachings non-analogous or incompatible. Both references are directed to optical lens systems/projection optics, i.e., the same field of endeavor, and both address transmission and imaging performance of lens systems. The fact that Wang discusses operation in visible/IR and Cheng discusses high transmission at 365 nm does not preclude a person of ordinary skill from adapting a known projection lens configuration to meet UV transmission requirements. Such adaptation is within the level of ordinary skill and involves routine selection of lens materials and coating appropriate to the intended wavelength band. Further, applicant’s reliance on different refractive index and dispersion values does not establish non-obviousness because the need to select appropriate optical materials (and adjust curvatures/spacings as required) is a standard, predictable engineering task in lens design. The claim does not recite any particular glass, coating stack, or aspheric prescription; it recites a performance requirement (≥ 75% at 365 nm), which would have been an express design goal taught by Cheng for UV-capable lens systems.
(C) Applicant argument (Not “simple substitution”; requires “substantial modification”). Applicant’s argument: Applicant contends that using Cheng to reach ≥ 75% transmittance at 365 nm would require replacing Wang’s materials and coatings, which would “significantly alter” refractive index/dispersion and require a “redesign” therefore not a predictable or simple substitution and not obvious to a PHOSITA.
Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The fact that implementing a known design goal may involve routine optical redesign (e.g., selection of UV-transmissive materials, appropriate coatings, and corresponding adjustment of lens parameters) does not render the modification non-obvious. Optical system is routinely designed and optimized by selecting known materials/coatings to meet known performance requirements. Here, Cheng teaches achieving high transmittance at 365 nm (measured at a defined thickness) for an optical lens system. A person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that employing UV-transmissive material and UV-appropriate coatings, as taught by Cheng, would improve UV transmission of a projection lens such as Wang’s. This represents predictable optimization of known variables to meet a known requirement, not impermissible hindsight. Additionally, claim includes an effective focal length range (8-14), and Wang explicitly teaches an EFL within this range; selecting UV-transmissive materials/coatings to meet the 365 nm transmittance requirement would not inherently preclude maintaining the claimed EFL because focal length is primarily determined by optical geometry (curvatures/spacing) and can be designed to meet a target range while also meeting transmission requirements.
(D) Applicant argument (No teaching/motivation for “heat buildup” / stability). Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues the Office’s rationale referencing reduced absorption/heat buildup/long-term stability is unsupported because Wang and Cheng do not discuss heat buildup and Wang is camera lens context where heating is allegedly not an issue.
Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Amotivation to combine need not be expressly stated in the references, and may be based on common sense and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, consistent with KSR. It is well understood that increased absorption in optical materials at a given wavelength reduces transmittance and can adversely affect optical performance; improving transmittance at the intended wavelength is a known engineering objective in optical system design. Cheng explicitly teaches high transmittance at 365 nm as a desirable property for short-wavelength/UV-capable optical lens systems, thereby providing a clear motivation to adapt known lens configuration to meet UV transmission requirements for UV applications. Even if “hat buildup” is not expressly recited in the references, the Office’s stated rationale is consistent with the recognized benefit to minimizing absorption and maximizing transmission at the operating wavelength. The Office therefore maintains that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wang’s projection lens using Cheng’s UV transmittance teaching to provide a UV-suitable projection lens with improved transmission at 365 nm.
(E) Applicant argument (Proposed modification renders Wang “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”). Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues modifying Wang for 365 nm transmittance would change the intended purpose of Wang (visible/IR imaging), rendering it unsatisfactory, invoking MPEP 2143.01(V) / In re Gordon.
Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The “intended purpose” of Wang is to provide an optical lens system for imaging/projection performance; adapting a lens system to a different wavelength band does not inherently render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of forming images, particularly where the modification is directed to improving transmission at the desired wavelength. Further, the proposed combination does not require abandoning Wang’s lens configuration; rather, it applies Cheng’s teaching of achieving high transmittance at 365 nm to adapt the known projection lens architecture of Wang of ultraviolet applications. The modification would therefore remain within the scope of Wang’s general purpose as an optical imaging/projection system, and does not render the prior art “unsatisfactory” in the sense contemplated by In re Gordon.
(F) Applicant argument (Repetition of “no TSM”, “unpredictable” “hindsight”). Applicant’s argument: Applicant repeats that the Office provide no evidence why a PHOSITA would modify Wang to achieve a specific transmittance at 365 nm; asserts unpredictability; and alleges hindsight/TSM failure.
Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Under KSR, an obviousness analysis does not require an explicit teaching, suggesting, or motivation in the prior art to combine references in the manner claimed; it requires an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. The Office has provided such reasoning: Cheng teaches that high transmittance at 365 nm is desirable/achievable for optical lens systems intended for short-wavelength/UV use; Wang teaches a projection lens meeting the claimed structural configuration and claimed effective focal length range. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt to known projection lens of Wang to meet the UV transmittance performance taught by Cheng in order to provide a UV-suitable projection lens. Further, the claimed transmittance limitation is a performance property achievable via routine selection of known UV-transmissive materials and coating and corresponding optical design adjustments, which are within the ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the rejection is not based on hindsight, but on the predictable application of Cheng’s UV transmission teaching to the projection lens configuration of Wang.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Want et al. US 2017/0023781 in view of Cheng et al. US 2016/0377844.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a projection lens (at least Fig. 1 and title and abstract), comprising: a first lens set (110) and a second lens set (120), disposed in sequence from a magnified side to a reduced side (see Fig. 1: 110 and 120 are arranged from the object to the image side),
wherein: the first lens set (110) and the second lens set (120) are separated by a minimum inner diameter of a lens barrel (as shown in Fig. 1: 110 and 120 are separated); the first lens set comprises 4 to 6 spherical lenses (para 0028: teaches that 110 has four lenses and para 0028: teaches “In the zoom lens 100 as described above, each of the lenses L1, L2, L3 and L4 of the first lens group 110 is, for example, a spherical lens.”), and a refractive power of the first lens set is negative (para 0020: “The first lens group 110 has a negative refractive power and includes a first lens L1, a second lens L2, a third lens L3, and a fourth lens L4 arranged in sequence from the object side to the image side.”); the second lens set (120) comprises 4 to 6 lenses (para 0020: teaches “The second lens group 120 includes a fifth lens L5, a sixth lens L6, a seventh lens L7, an eighth lens L8, a ninth lens L9, and a tenth lens L10 arranged in sequence from the object side to the image side. i.e., 6 lenses”), one of the lenses is an aspheric lens (para 0028: “At least one of the fifth lens L5 and the tenth lens L10 in the second lens group 120 is an aspheric lens”) and a refractive power of the second lens set is positive (para 0020: teaches “The second lens group 120 has a positive refractive power”), wherein an effective focal length of the projection lens is greater than or equal to 8 and less than or equal to 14 (para 0035: teaches that in the tele-end the effective focal length of the lens system 100 is 10 mm.)
Wang fails to teach that: the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches a projection lens (see para 0081 and at least Fig. 1), having a first group (20) and a second group (30), the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm (see para 0007 and 0081). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection lens of Wang by utilizing the claimed transmittance percentage at the claimed wavelength as taught by Cheng to provide an optical system used in UV application, moreover, greater 75% transmittance ensures minimal UV absorption, thus lens heat buildup in lenses, and provide better long-term optical stability.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2017/0023781 in view of Cheng et al. US 2016/0377844and Kawakami et al. US 2008/0239514.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a projection lens (at least Fig. 1 and title and abstract) comprising a first lens set (110) and a second lens set (120) disposed in sequence from a magnified side to a reduced side (see Fig. 1: 110 and 120 are arranged from the object to the image side), wherein the first lens set (110) comprises 3 to 5 spherical lenses (para 0028: teaches that 110 has four lenses and para 0028: teaches “In the zoom lens 100 as described above, each of the lenses L1, L2, L3 and L4 of the first lens group 110 is, for example, a spherical lens.”), a refractive power of the first lens set is negative (para 0020: “The first lens group 110 has a negative refractive power and includes a first lens L1, a second lens L2, a third lens L3, and a fourth lens L4 arranged in sequence from the object side to the image side.”);
the second lens set (120) comprises an aspheric lens (para 0028: “At least one of the fifth lens L5 and the tenth lens L10 in the second lens group 120 is an aspheric lens”) and comprises 5 to 7 lenses (para 0020: teaches “The second lens group 120 includes a fifth lens L5, a sixth lens L6, a seventh lens L7, an eighth lens L8, a ninth lens L9, and a tenth lens L10 arranged in sequence from the object side to the image side. i.e., 6 lenses”), a refractive power of the second lens set is positive (para 0020: teaches “The second lens group 120 has a positive refractive power”), and wherein an effective focal length of the projection lens is greater than or equal to 8 and less than or equal to 14 (para 0035: teaches that in the tele-end the effective focal length of the lens system 100 is 10 mm.)
Wang fails to teach that: the first lens set is disposed in a first lens barrel; and the second lens set is disposed in a second lens barrel and the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm.
Wang fails to teach: the first lens set is disposed in a first lens barrel; and the second lens set is disposed in a second lens barrel and the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm.
Wang fails to teach that: the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches a projection lens (see para 0081 and at least Fig. 1), having a first group (20) and a second group (30), the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm (see para 0007 and 0081). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection lens of Wang by utilizing the claimed transmittance percentage at the claimed wavelength as taught by Cheng to provide an optical system used in UV application, moreover, greater 75% transmittance ensures minimal UV absorption, thus lens heat buildup in lenses, and provide better long-term optical stability.
Wang and Cheng fail to teach: the first lens set is disposed in a first lens barrel; and the second lens set is disposed in a second lens barrel.
Wang, Cheng and Kawakami are related with respect to projection lens.
Kawakami (US 2008/0239514) teaches a projection lens having a first group and second group (Fig. 1: LG1 and LG2), wherein the first lens set is disposed in a first lens barrel; and the second lens set is disposed in a second lens barrel (see para 0050: “the 1a lens group LG1a and the 1b lens group LG1b, which make up the first lens group LG1, are fixed to a first lens barrel, and the 2a lens group LG2a and the 2b lens group LG2b, which make up the second lens group LG2, are fixed to a second lens barrel.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide two different lenses set into two different lens barrels as taught by Kawakami in order to hold and move independently the two-lens set or groups accordingly during operation of the projection lens system.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, and Wang further teaches wherein distances of the first lens set and the second lens set of the projection lens relative to an imaging surface on the reduced side of the projection lens is variable (see Table 3A: distance between the lenses and the imaging surface 150 is different).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, and Wang further teaches wherein the projection lens satisfies a conditional formula as follow: 13≤TTL/H≤21, wherein TTL is a total length of the projection lens, and H is an image height of an imaging surface of the projection lens on the reduced side (see para 0037: “a total length in the wide-end of the zoom lens divided by the image height is between 11.5 and 16.25, preferably between 12.75 and 15.25, and more preferably between 13.75 and 15”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, except for wherein a throw ratio of the projection lens is 1.0. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a throw ratio of the projection lens to 1 the purpose of having an optical axis in an imagining optical system that can be shifted with respect to the image forming element. The applicant should note that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, and Wang further fails to teach wherein an F-number of the projection lens is 1.5 (para 0037: “An f-number of the zoom lens 100 is 1.50”). Wang fails to explicitly teach that the F-number of the projection lens is 2.2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the F-number within the claimed range, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, and but the combination of Wang does not specifically specify that an optical distortion of the projection lens is less than 0.25%; however, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, except for wherein a material of each lens of the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 80% at a wavelength of 365 nm and a thickness of 10 mm.
Wang fails to teach that: the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 80% at a wavelength of 365 nm and a thickness of 10 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches a projection lens (see para 0081 and at least Fig. 1), having a first group (20) and a second group (30), the projection lens comprises a transmittance greater than or equal to 75% at a wavelength of 365 nm (see para 0007 and 0081). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection lens of Wang by utilizing the claimed transmittance percentage at the claimed wavelength as taught by Cheng to provide an optical system used in UV application, moreover, greater 75% transmittance ensures minimal UV absorption, thus lens heat buildup in lenses, and provide better long-term optical stability.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Cheng and Kawakami as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lin US 2018/0224623.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, except for wherein the first lens set is disposed in the first lens barrel, the second lens set is disposed in the second lens barrel, and the second lens barrel is covered by the first lens barrel.
Wang, Cheng, Kawakami and Lin are related with respect to lens assembly.
Lin teaches the first lens set is (Fig. 1A: lens 112) disposed in the first lens barrel (111), the second lens set (125) is disposed in the second lens barrel (121, and the second lens barrel (121) is covered by the first lens barrel (111) (as shown in Fig. 1A the tip of lens barrel 112 is covered by lens barrel 111). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical system of Wang by utilizing the claimed lens barrel configuration as taught by Lin in order to improve concentricity between the first lens group and second lens group.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Cheng, Kawakami and Lin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoshitsugu US 2006/0193061.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 3, except for further comprising a main lens barrel, and the first lens barrel and the second lens barrel are disposed in the main lens barrel.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshitsugu teaches a main lens barrel (Figs. 10 and 11: 5) covering fist lens barrel and second lens barrel. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection lens of Wang by utilizing the claimed main lens barrel, in order to provide protection.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Cheng and Kawakami as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dong et al. CN 107991760.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the lenses of the first lens set are all glass spherical lenses.
In the same field of endeavor, Dong teaches the lenses of the first lens set are all glass spherical lenses (see para 0012: first lens group G1 are all glass spherical lenses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection lens of Wang by utilizing the claimed glass lens as taught by Dong in order to provide a projection lens having insusceptible to environmental changes such as changes in temperature and humidity. Similarly, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and manufacturing cost and for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the lenses of the projection lens are all glass lenses.
In the same field of endeavor, Dong teaches the lenses of the projection lens are all glass lenses (see para 0012: all group of lenses are all glass lenses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the projection lens of Wang by utilizing the claimed glass lens as taught by Dong in order to provide a projection lens having insusceptible to environmental changes such as changes in temperature and humidity. Similarly, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and manufacturing cost and for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Cheng and Kawakami as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lai (US 2023/0065152) hereinafter Lai152.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, and however, Wang fails to teaches wherein the projection lens does not comprise a cemented lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Lai152 teaches a lens system (Fig. 3), wherein the lens system does not comprise a cemented lens (see Fig. 3 and para 0076). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lens system of Wang by providing a lens system does not comprise a cemented lens as taught by Lai152 in order to provide better imaging quality as describe in para 0076.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Cheng and Kawakami as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. US 2020/0241246.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wang teaches the projection lens according to claim 2, but fails to specifically teach a distance between two lenses of the projection lens is less than or equal to 0.01 mm, and the two lenses are non-cemented lenses.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches that adjusting and optimizing the air spacing distance between adjacent lenses to ensure an optical assembly with an ultra-thin and compact feature (see para 0098). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Wang by utilizing the claimed distance between two lenses as taught by in order to ensure an ultra-thin projection lens assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the projection lens according to claim 2, wherein the projection lens comprises ten lenses, and the ten lenses meet one of the following conditions: (1) refractive powers of the ten lenses are positive, negative, negative, negative, positive, positive, negative, positive, positive, and positive in sequence from the magnified side to the reduced side; or (2) refractive powers of the ten lenses are positive, negative, negative, positive, positive, negative, negative, positive, positive, and positive in sequence from the magnified side to the reduced side.
Regarding claim 6, the projection lens according to claim 2, wherein the projection lens comprises nine lenses, and refractive powers of the nine lenses are positive, negative, negative, positive, positive, negative, positive, positive, and positive in sequence from the magnified side to the reduced side.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872