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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/12/2025.
Amendments to claims 1-2, 4-14, and 16-20, filed 12/12/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the abstract and the specification, filed 12/12/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments, the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b,d) are withdrawn, but new issues are raised below.
Due also to the amendments, the previous objections to the abstract are withdrawn. However, objections to the specification are maintained because the recent amendments failed to adequately address the extensive issues that remain throughout the specification.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 10-11 of the Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, Applicant's arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 12, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 12/12/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection, filed 9/12/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure remains objected to because the specification continues to be replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 3, “An embodiment of the invention is to provide” is grammatically defective and repeated three times over
In ¶ 15, lines 1-2, it is not clear how a mere device such as “The optical system… may correct aberration characteristics and implement a slim optical system”
In ¶ 15, lines 2-3, “the optical system may be miniaturized and high quality and high resolution can be realized” is improper and unclear
In ¶ 31, lines 8-9, “terms... should be able to interpret their meanings” is improper and unclear
In ¶ 32, lines 6-7, “the shape of the lens is shown based on the optical axis of the lens” is vague and unclear
In ¶ 32, line 4, “measures” should read “measurements”
In ¶ 83, line 3, “lien” is a misspelling of “line”
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12-16, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “the fourth and sixth lenses each has a…” is improper and should read “the fourth and six lenses each have a…” or similar, such that there is proper subject-verb agreement (“has” is tied to “lenses” here). On line 4, “the fifth and seventh lenses each has…” is similarly improper.
In claim 12, line 20, “at center” is missing an article and should read “at a center”
Claims not specifically addressed above inherit the objections of the claims from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, lines 18-19, “edges of the object-side surface of the eighth lens in a direction orthogonal to…” is poorly constructed and grammatically unclear. The phrase “edges… in a direction orthogonal to…” fails to properly communicate any clear geometric/ structural relationships. For examination purposes, the limitation shall be interpreted to mean that the edges correspond to peripheral areas (surfaces) on the object-side surface of the eighth lens, and that it is these areas/surfaces which are orthogonal to the optical axis.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si (US 20220113503 A1) in view of Chen (US 20220082801 A1, hereinafter “Chen1”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Si discloses an optical system (camera optical lens 10; see ¶s 29-30 and 73-153, FIG. 1, and Tables 1 and 13 detailing this first embodiment) comprising:
a first lens (L1), a second lens (L2), a third lens (L3), a fourth lens (L4), a fifth lens (L5), a sixth lens (L6), a seventh lens (L7), an eighth lens (L8) , and a ninth lens (L9) which are sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side (or “image side”),
wherein the first lens (L1) has a convex object-side surface (i.e. R1 > 0),
wherein the second lens (L2) has a positive refractive power (i.e. f2 > 0) and has a convex object-side surface (i.e. R3 > 0),
wherein the third lens (L3) has a negative refractive power (i.e. f3 < 0) and a concave sensor-side surface (i.e. R6 > 0),
wherein the eighth lens (L8) has a positive refractive power (i.e. f8 > 0), and at least one of an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) has at least one inflection point (see also Table 3 recording the “inflexion points”),
wherein the ninth lens (L9) has a negative refractive power (i.e. f9 < 0), an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the ninth lens (L9) each having at least one inflection point (see also Table 3 recording the “inflexion points”),
wherein a center thickness (d3=0.869mm) of the second lens (L2) is greater than a center thickness (d17=0.422mm) of the ninth lens (L9) and a center thickness (d1= 0.610mm) of the first lens (L1).
Si does not disclose:
wherein the first lens has a positive refractive power,
wherein the fourth lens has a concave object-side surface,
wherein the object-side surface of the ninth lens has a convex shape
Si and Chen1 are commonly related to nine-component camera optical lenses.
Chen1 discloses the optical system (camera optical lens 10; see ¶s 31-32 and 76-155, FIG. 1, and Tables 1 and 13 detailing this first embodiment) comprising:
wherein the first lens (L1) has a positive refractive power (i.e. f1 > 0),
wherein the fourth lens (L4) has a concave object-side surface (i.e. R7 < 0),
wherein the object-side surface of the ninth lens (L9) has a convex shape (i.e. i.e. R17 > 0)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Si and Chen1 – with differences reflecting commonly adjusted design variables for the same class of nine-component camera optical lenses – in order to explore the shared parameter space and obtain a configuration with improved (or otherwise desirable) optical performance. See, e.g., Chen1 ¶s 34-36.
Further regarding claim 12, Si also discloses (see Table 1; see also annotated FIG. 1 below regarding items D and E below):
wherein the first lens (L1) has a concave sensor side surface (i.e. R2 > 0),
wherein the second lens (L2) has a convex sensor-side surface (i.e. R4 < 0),
wherein a center thickness (d3=0.869mm) of the second lens (L2) is thicker than a center thickness ({d5, d7, d9, d11} = {0.336, 0.283, 0.568, 0.250}mm) of each of the third to sixth lenses (L3-L6),
wherein edges of the object-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis are closer to the first lens (L1) than a straight line orthogonal to the optical axis at center of the object-side surface of the eighth lens (L8),
wherein a straight line connecting the edges of the object-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) and orthogonal to the optical axis is the same as a straight line orthogonal to the optical axis in a middle between an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the seventh lens (L7) or is located closer to the first lens (L1).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Si is annotated to highlight various features)]Regarding claim 2, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see Table 1) wherein the center thickness (d3 = 0.869mm) of the second lens (L2) is thicker than a center thickness ({d1, d5, d7, d9, d11} = {0.610, 0.336, 0.283, 0.568, 0.250}mm) of each of the third to sixth lenses (L1 and L3-L6).
Regarding claim 5, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see Table 13, ¶ 30):
wherein the fourth lens (L4) has a negative refractive power (i.e. f4 < 0), and
wherein the fifth lens (L5) has a positive refractive power (i.e. f5 > 0).
Chen1 further discloses (see Table 13, ¶ 30):
wherein the sixth lens (L6) has a negative refractive power (i.e. f6 < 0), and
wherein the seventh lens (L7) has a positive refractive power (i.e. f7 > 0).
Regarding claim 6, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see ¶s 29-30 and 73-153, FIG. 1, and Tables 1 and 13) the comprising an image sensor (image surface Si) on a sensor side of the ninth lens (L9); and an optical filter (GF) between the image sensor (image surface Si) and the ninth lens (L9), wherein the optical system (camera optical lens 10) satisfies Equations 1 and 2:
[Equation 1] 0 < BFL/TTL (= (d18 + d19 + d20)/TTL ≈ 0.12) < 0.3
[Equation 2] 0 < BFL/Img (= (d18 + d19 + d20)/IH ≈ 0.19) < 0.3
where BFL(= d18 + d19 + d20) is a distance from a center of the sensor-side surface of the ninth lens (L9) to the image sensor (image surface Si), TTL is a distance from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (L1) to the image sensor (image surface Si), and Img(= IH) is a vertical distance from the optical axis to 1.0F, which is a diagonal end on the image sensor (image surface Si).
Regarding claim 7, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see ¶s 29-30 and 73-153, FIG. 1, and Tables 1 and 13) it comprising an image sensor (image surface Si) on a sensor side of the ninth lens (L9) and an optical filter (GF) between the image sensor (image surface Si) and the ninth lens (L9), wherein the optical system (camera optical lens 10) satisfies Equations 3, 4, and 5:
[Equation 3] 0.5 < F/TTL (= f/TTL ≈ 0.78) < 1.2
[Equation Δ] 0.5 < TTL/(Img×2)(= TTL/(2*IH) ≈ 0.81)
[Equation 5] 0.5 < TTL/(D92×2)(≈ 1) < 1.2
where TTL is a distance from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (L1) to the image sensor (image surface Si), F(= f) is a total effective focal length of the optical system (camera optical lens 10), Img(= IH) is a vertical distance from the optical axis to 1.0F, which is a diagonal end on the image sensor (image surface Si), and D92 is a distance from a center of the sensor-side surface of the ninth lens (L9) to an end of an effective region on the optical axis (regarding Equation 5, see FIG. 1, again annotated below where TTL and 2*D92 are labeled and shown to be approximately equal; note: Examiner has determined Si’s FIG. 1 is
PNG
media_image3.png
790
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Si is again annotated to label TTL and 2*D92 for comparison)]drawn to scale by using Si’s Table 1 to verify lens proportions/distances).
Si thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, differing only by a TTL/(Img×2) ratio (of ~0.81) that is close to, but does not explicitly overlap with, the claimed range of:
[Equation 4] 0.5 < TTL/(Img×2) < 0.8
Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for the upper bound (TTL/(Img×2) = 0.8) of this range.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Si’s optical system, e.g. by slightly increasing image sensor size (such that IH = Img increases, and TTL/(Img×2) falls within the claimed range), in order to accommodate larger images – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see Table 1):
wherein the second lens (L2) has a convex sensor-side surface (i.e. R4 < 0) and
wherein a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens (L2) is L2R1(= R3), and an absolute value of a radius of curvature of a sensor-side surface of the second lens (L2) is defined as |L2R2|(= |R4|), wherein a following relation is satisfied: 0 <L2R1/|L2R2|(= R3/|R4| ≈ 0.4) < 0.5.
Regarding claim 9, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see Table 1):
wherein the third lens (L3) has a convex object-side surface (i.e. R5 > 0), and
wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens (L3) is |L3R1|(= |R5|), and a radius of curvature of the sensor-side surface of the third lens (L3) is L3R2(= R6), wherein a following relation is satisfied: 0.2 < L3R2/|L3R1|(= R6/|R5| ≈ 0.4) < 1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see Table 1) wherein a refractive index of the second lens (L2) at 587 nm is G2(= nd2) and a refractive index of the third lens (L3) at 587 nm is G3(= nd3), wherein a following relation is satisfied: 0.7 < G2/G3(= nd2/nd3 ≈ 0.9) < 1.2. (Note, per ¶s 123-133, Si provides d line refractive indices, corresponding to helium’s spectral line at ~587 nm.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses (see Table 1) wherein the center thickness of the first lens (L1) is T1(= d1), the center thickness of the second lens (L2) is T2(= d3), and the center thickness of the third lens (L3) is T3(= d5), wherein following relations are satisfied: 0.2 < T3/T2(= d5/d3 ≈ 0.4) < 1 and 0.2 < T1/T2(= d1/d3 ≈ 0.7) < 1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 12.
Si, in the (first) embodiment cited above, further discloses:
wherein the object-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) has a convex shape (i.e. R15 > 0) and the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) has a concave shape (i.e. R16 > 0) (see Table 1), and
the straight line connecting the edges of the object-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) and a straight line orthogonal to the optical axis at a center of the object-side surface of the seventh lens (L7). (Refer to the first of the annotated FIG. 1 above, provided in regards to claim 12.)
Modified Si, based on the (first) embodiment cited above, does not disclose wherein the straight line connecting the edges of the object-side surface of the eighth lens is located closer to the first lens than the straight line orthogonal to the optical axis at a center of the object-side surface of the seventh lens.
PNG
media_image5.png
643
645
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 9 of Si is annotated to highlight various features)]Si, in another (third) embodiment, discloses wherein the straight line connecting the edges of the object-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) is located closer to the first lens (L1) than the straight line orthogonal to the optical axis at a center of the object-side surface of the seventh lens (L7). (See annotated FIG. 9 below)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Si’s first embodiment with some aspects of their third embodiment – e.g. by moving the seventh lens to be closer to lens eighth lens, such that claimed limitation is met – in order to tune the overall optical power of the lens system (note: Examiner finds that, in Si’s first embodiment, there is sufficient space between the seventh and eight lenses to accommodate such movement and also meet the stated claim limitation)
Regarding claim 14, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 12.
Si further discloses (see Table 1):
wherein an interval (d8 = 0.126mm) between the fourth lens (L4) and the fifth lens (L5) along the optical axis is greater than a first interval (d2 = 0.055mm) between the first lens (L1) and the second lens (L2),
wherein the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens (L8) has concave shape (i.e. R16 > 0) and,
wherein a second interval (d16 = 0.979mm) between the eighth lens (L8) and the ninth lens (L9) along the optical axis is greater than the first interval (d2 = 0.055mm).
Regarding claim 16, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 13.
Si further discloses (see Table 1) wherein the center thickness (d3 = 0.869mm) of the second lens (L2) is in a range of 2 to 4 times the center thickness (d5 = 0.336mm; thus d3/d5 ≈ 2.6) of the third lens (L3).
Regarding claim 17, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses
wherein an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the first lens (L1) is larger than an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the second lens (L2) (as shown in FIG. 1), and
wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens (L2) has a convex shape (i.e. R4 < 0).
Regarding claim 18, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 17.
Si further discloses:
wherein the effective diameter of the object-side surface of the first lens (L1) is larger than an effective diameter of an object-side surface of the third lens (L3) (as shown in FIG. 1), and
wherein the center thickness (d3 = 0.869mm) of the second lens (L2) is in a range of 2 to 4 times the center thickness (d5 = 0.336mm; thus d3/d5 ≈ 2.6) of the third lens (L3).
Regarding claim 19, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 12.
Si further discloses
wherein an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the first lens (L1) is larger than an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the second lens (L2) (as shown in FIG. 1),
wherein a combined focal length of the first lens (L1) and the second lens (L2) has a positive value (f12 > 0; see also Table 13 for an approximate figure).
Regarding claim 20, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 12.
Si further discloses:
wherein an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the first lens (L1) is larger than an effective diameter of an object-side surface of the third lens (L3) (as shown in FIG. 1),
wherein the object-side surface of the third lens (L3) has a convex shape (i.e. R5 > 0), and
wherein the center thickness (d17 = 0.422mm) of the ninth lens (L9) is smaller than a center thickness (d15 = 0.456mm) of the eighth lens (L8) (see Table 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si in view of Chen1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chen (US 20200393653 A1, hereinafter “Chen2”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses wherein the refractive index (nd3 = 1.67) of the third lens (L3) is greater than refractive indices ({nd1, nd2, nd5, nd7, nd9} = {1.5444, 1.5444, 1.5346, 1.5844, 1.5346}) of the first, second, fifth, seventh, and ninth lenses (L1, L2, L5, L7, L9). (Table 1)
Modified Si does not disclose wherein refractive indices of the sixth and eighth lenses are greater than refractive indices of the first, second, fifth, seventh, and ninth lenses.
Si and Chen2 are related as being directed towards optical nine-lens systems.
Chen2 discloses (see ¶s 294-307 and Table 21 regarding their 11th Embodiment) wherein refractive indices ({N6, N8} = {1.66, 1.686}) of the sixth and eighth lenses (1160 and 1180) are greater than refractive indices ({N1, N2, N5, N7, N9} = {1.542, 1.65, 1.582, 1.639, 1.544}) of the first, second, fifth, seventh, and ninth lenses (1110, 1120, 1150, 1170, 1190).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Si with Chen2’s teachings, in order to find lens designs with desirable performance (e.g. power and field-of-view, chromatic/ spherical aberration profiles, etc.), as it is generally known that the optical properties of a system of lenses are significantly affected by their refractive index profiles (see, e.g., Chen2 ¶ 72).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si in view of Chen1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng and Huang (US 20210396959 A1, hereinafter “Tseng”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Si further discloses wherein Abbe numbers ({v1, v2, v5, v9} = {55.82, 55.82, 55.7, 55.7}) of the first, second, fifth, and ninth lenses (L1, L2, L5, L9) are 50 or more, and the Abbe number (v3 = 19.39) of the third lens (L3) is less than 30. (Table 1)
Modified Si does not disclose wherein Abbe numbers of the fourth and seventh lenses are 50 or more, and the Abbe number of the sixth lens is less than 30.
Si and Tseng are related as being directed towards optical multi-lens systems.
Tseng discloses (see ¶s 163-167 and Table 11 regarding their 6th Embodiment) wherein Abbe numbers (both equal to 56) of the fourth and seventh lenses (740 and 770) are 50 or more, and the Abbe number (equal to 18.4) of the sixth lens (760) is less than 30.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Si with teachings of Tseng, in order to balance light convergence/focusing for chromatic aberration corrections, avoid image overlaps (Tseng ¶s 44, 57).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si in view of Chen1, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lohmann (NPL entitled Scaling laws for lens systems).
Regarding claim 15, modified Si discloses the optical system of claim 14.
Si further discloses wherein the second interval (d16 = 0.979mm) is 0.4 mm or more. (See Table 1)
Si does not disclose wherein the first interval is 0.4 mm or more.
Si and Lohmann are related as being directed towards lens systems.
Lohmann discloses wherein the first and second interval is 0.4 mm or more. (See pg. 4996, col. 2; Lohmann discloses that length-scaling of lens systems is trivial. Examiner notes that the stated limitation may be met under such scaling, – e.g., by a scaling factor of M = 7.2, Si’s first interval (d2 = 0.055mm) precisely becomes 0.4mm.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Si with teachings of Lohmann, in order to increase the size of the optical system and satisfy desired size requirements.
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872