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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on July 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on July 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that there is not a serious search or examination burden if examining all species together. This is not found persuasive because the claims to the different species recite mutually exclusive characteristics of each species, such as the specific configuration of the lens in the system and are not considered obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Further, the species would require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
In regard to claim 1, the limitation “when a distance on the optical axis from a vertex on the optical axis of the final surface to a position of a maximum image height of the imaging surface is denoted by BF, and a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear whether the use of the conditional term “when” renders the limitation optional. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the limitation should be “a distance on the optical axis from a vertex on the optical axis of the final surface to a position of a maximum image height of the imaging surface is denoted by BF, and a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f”.
In regard to claim 16, the limitation “when a distance on the optical axis from a vertex on the optical axis of the final surface to a position of a maximum image height of the imaging surface is denoted by BF, and a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear whether the use of the conditional term “when” renders the limitation optional. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the limitation should be “a distance on the optical axis from a vertex on the optical axis of the final surface to a position of a maximum image height of the imaging surface is denoted by BF, and a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f”.
Claims 2, 3, 5-15 have similar use of the conditional word “when” and are similarly rejected.
In regard to claim 8, the use of the phrase “in a case” (i.e. used twice within the claim) renders the scope of the claim unclear because the phrase is conditional in nature. Namely, it is unclear whether the use of the conditional phrase “in a case” renders the limitation optional. For examination purposes, it is presumed the half angle is 40 degrees.
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 9 and 15 since they have similar use of the phrase “in a case.”
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (JP 2021-43385, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Ito discloses an imaging lens (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 3, last paragraph), comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a lens group including six or more lenses G1-G6 including at least one aspherical lens (see e.g. page 14, first paragraph and page 16 for aspherical data) that forms an optical image of an object on an imaging surface IP (see e.g. page 6, 6th full paragraph) curved concavely toward an object side (i.e. left side of Figure 1),
wherein a final surface that is a surface on an imaging surface side of a final lens G6 that is a lens closest to the imaging surface side in the lens group is a spherical surface or an aspherical surface in which a sign of surface power is not inverted with increasing distance from an optical axis (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that shape of the surface is not causing an inversion of power),
a shape of the final surface (i.e. of G6) is a shape that tilts toward the object side with increasing distance from the optical axis (see e.g. Figure 1), and
when a distance on the optical axis from a vertex on the optical axis of the final surface to a position of a maximum image height of the imaging surface is denoted by BF, and a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f,
0.1 < BF/f < 0.3 is satisfied (see e.g. pages 15-16 for data for numerical example 1, with BF = 9.10 and focal length = 51.50, thus BF/f= 9.10/51.50 ~ 0.177). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates that range (see e.g. MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 11, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an aperture stop SP (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 6, second full paragraph), wherein, when a curvature radius of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri and a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to the imaging surface is denoted by Ts, -50 ≤ Ri/Ts ≤ -1.7 is satisfied (see e.g. pages 15-16 for data for numerical example 1, with Ri=107.749 and Ts is calculated by the data in the table on pages 15-16 to be ~47.69, thus Ri/Ts ~ -2.26, which falls in applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 16, Ito discloses an imaging device, comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
an imaging lens (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 3, last paragraph) that has a lens group including six or more lenses G1-G6 including at least one aspherical lens (see e.g. page 14, first paragraph and page 16 for aspherical data) that forms an optical image of an object on an imaging surface IP (see e.g. page 6, 6th full paragraph) curved concavely toward an object side (i.e. left side of Figure 1),
an imaging element that has the imaging surface IP and converts the optical image formed on the imaging surface into an electric signal (see e.g. last sentence of a page 14, continued on page 15),
wherein a final surface that is a surface on an imaging surface side of a final lens G6 that is a lens closest to the imaging surface side in the lens group is a spherical surface or an aspherical surface in which a sign of surface power is not inverted with increasing distance from an optical axis (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that shape of the surface is not causing an inversion of power),
a shape of the final surface (i.e. of G6) is a shape that tilts toward the object side with increasing distance from the optical axis (see e.g. Figure 1), and
when a distance on the optical axis from a vertex on the optical axis of the final surface to a position of a maximum image height of the imaging surface is denoted by BF, and a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f,
0.1 < BF/f < 0.3 is satisfied (see e.g. pages 15-16 for data for numerical example 1, with BF = 9.10 and focal length = 51.50, thus BF/f= 9.10/51.50 ~ 0.177). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates that range (see e.g. MPEP 2131.03).
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 2-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2021-43385).
In regard to claim 2, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when a curvature radius of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri and a curvature radius of the final surface is denoted by RL2, 0.5 ≤ Ri/RL2 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied.
However, Ito disclose Ri = -53.000 and RL2 = –107.749, thus Ri/RL2 ~ 0.49188 (see e.g. pages 15-16 for data for numerical example 1), which is close to applicant’s claims range.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when a curvature radius of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri and a curvature radius of the final surface is denoted by RL2, 0.5 ≤ Ri/RL2 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied.
Selecting the ratio of the radii of curvature for the final lens surface and the imaging surfacing would have predictable results and result in a higher quality image.
In regard to claim 3, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when the maximum image height is denoted by Y, and an overall optical length that is a distance on the optical axis from a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by TTL, Y/TTL > 0.7 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when the maximum image height is denoted by Y, and an overall optical length that is a distance on the optical axis from a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by TTL, Y/TTL > 0.7 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when the maximum image height is denoted by Y, and an overall optical length that is a distance on the optical axis from a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by TTL, Y/TTL > 0.7 is satisfied.
Providing a maximum image size relative to the total length of the lens system would allow the image to be maximized with high quality and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 4, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an F value is 2.5 or less (see e.g. pages 15-16 for data for numerical example 1, with an F value of 1.24).
Ito fails to disclose
a maximum angle of view is 90 degrees or more.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a maximum angle of view is 90 degrees or more is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with a maximum angle of view is 90 degrees or more.
Maximizing the viewing angle would have predictable results and provide an image that may be viewed along a wider range of positions.
In regard to claim 5, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f and a focal length of the final lens is denoted by fL, f/fL < -0.6 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f and a focal length of the final lens is denoted by fL, f/fL < -0.6 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f and a focal length of the final lens is denoted by fL, f/fL < -0.6 is satisfied.
Selecting a ratio of the focal lengths that optimizes the system will provide a desired magnification and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 6, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when a curvature radius of a surface of the final lens on the object side is denoted by RL1 and a curvature radius of the final surface is denoted by RL2, 0.05 ≤ RL1/RL2 ≤ 0.3 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when a curvature radius of a surface of the final lens on the object side is denoted by RL1 and a curvature radius of the final surface is denoted by RL2, 0.05 ≤ RL1/RL2 ≤ 0.3 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when a curvature radius of a surface of the final lens on the object side is denoted by RL1 and a curvature radius of the final surface is denoted by RL2, 0.05 ≤ RL1/RL2 ≤ 0.3 is satisfied.
Selecting the ratio of the radii of curvature would provide a desired focal length and magnification and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 7, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when an exit pupil position of a maximum image height ray is denoted by EXPY and a curvature radius of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri, 0.01 ≤ EXPY/Ri ≤ 0.45 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when an exit pupil position of a maximum image height ray is denoted by EXPY and a curvature radius of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri, 0.01 ≤ EXPY/Ri ≤ 0.45 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when an exit pupil position of a maximum image height ray is denoted by EXPY and a curvature radius of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri, 0.01 ≤ EXPY/Ri ≤ 0.45 is satisfied.
Providing an optimized ratio of the image height to the curvature radius of the imaging surface would provide an optimized size and quality of the image.
In regard to claim 8, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above,
wherein when optical distortion in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Dw, and an image height in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, 0.001 ≤ |Dw/Yw| ≤ 0.08 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when optical distortion in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Dw, and an image height in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, 0.001 ≤ |Dw/Yw| ≤ 0.08 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when optical distortion in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Dw, and an image height in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, 0.001 ≤ |Dw/Yw| ≤ 0.08 is satisfied.
Selecting a ratio of the half angle to the height would provide an optimized magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 9, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when an ambient light amount ratio with respect to a center of the imaging surface in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by RIYw, and a maximum half angle of view is denoted by w, 1.2 ≤ RIYw/ (cos (w) ¹) ≤ 35 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when an ambient light amount ratio with respect to a center of the imaging surface in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by RIYw, and a maximum half angle of view is denoted by w, 1.2 ≤ RIYw/ (cos (w) ¹) ≤ 35 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when an ambient light amount ratio with respect to a center of the imaging surface in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by RIYw, and a maximum half angle of view is denoted by w, 1.2 ≤ RIYw/ (cos (w) ¹) ≤ 35 is satisfied.
Selecting the half angle of view and ambient light amount ratio to optimize the light reaching the image surface would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 10, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when a distance on the optical axis from the final surface to the imaging surface is denoted by fb and the maximum image height is denoted by Y, 9.7 ≤ fbx2Y ≤ 29.4 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when a distance on the optical axis from the final surface to the imaging surface is denoted by fb and the maximum image height is denoted by Y, 9.7 ≤ fbx2Y ≤ 29.4 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when a distance on the optical axis from the final surface to the imaging surface is denoted by fb and the maximum image height is denoted by Y, 9.7 ≤ fbx2Y ≤ 29.4 is satisfied.
Selecting a distance from the final lens surface to the imaging surface that is optimized would allow for the device to have a smaller footprint.
In regard to claim 12, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when a maximum effective radius of a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group is denoted by Hf and a maximum effective radius of the final surface is denoted by Hb, 0.475 ≤ Hf/Hb ≤ 0.68 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when a maximum effective radius of a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group is denoted by Hf and a maximum effective radius of the final surface is denoted by Hb, 0.475 ≤ Hf/Hb ≤ 0.68 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when a maximum effective radius of a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group is denoted by Hf and a maximum effective radius of the final surface is denoted by Hb, 0.475 ≤ Hf/Hb ≤ 0.68 is satisfied.
Selecting the maximum effective radii of the lenses within the system would have predictable results and would provide a higher quality image.
In regard to claim 13, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein when a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f, and a focal length of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group is denoted by fF, -0.35 ≤ f/fF ≤ 0.73 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f, and a focal length of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group is denoted by fF, -0.35 ≤ f/fF ≤ 0.73 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f, and a focal length of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group is denoted by fF, -0.35 ≤ f/fF ≤ 0.73 is satisfied.
Selecting a ratio of the focal lengths that optimizes the system will provide a desired magnification and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 14, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an aperture stop SP (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 6, second full paragraph).
Ito fails to disclose
wherein, when a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to the imaging surface is denoted by Ts, and an overall optical length that is a distance on the optical axis from a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by TTL, 0.73 ≤ Ts/TTL ≤ 0.9 is satisfied.
However, Ito does disclose Ts ~ 47.69 (calculated from numerical data on pages 15-16) and TTL = 75.01 (form numerical data on pages 15-16), giving a ratio of ~ 0.64, which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein, when a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to the imaging surface is denoted by Ts, and an overall optical length that is a distance on the optical axis from a foremost surface that is a surface on the object side of a lens closest to the object side in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by TTL, 0.73 ≤ Ts/TTL ≤ 0.9 is satisfied.
Providing a ratio of the distance from the aperture to the image and the total track length may provide an optimized image by reducing unwanted stray light from reaching the image surface.
In regard to claim 15, Ito discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose
wherein when optical distortion in a case where an image height is the maximum image height is denoted by DY, optical distortion in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Dw, the maximum image height is denoted by Y, and an image height in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, -0.16 ≤ (DY - Dw) / (Y - Yw) ≤ 0.16 is satisfied.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when optical distortion in a case where an image height is the maximum image height is denoted by DY, optical distortion in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Dw, the maximum image height is denoted by Y, and an image height in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, -0.16 ≤ (DY - Dw) / (Y - Yw) ≤ 0.16 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito with wherein when optical distortion in a case where an image height is the maximum image height is denoted by DY, optical distortion in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Dw, the maximum image height is denoted by Y, and an image height in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, -0.16 ≤ (DY - Dw) / (Y - Yw) ≤ 0.16 is satisfied.
Selecting a half angle of view and image height that is optimized would result in a less distorted image at the image surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights