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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 7, 2026, has been entered.
Amendment
The Response, filed on January 7, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Final Office Action dated November 12, 2025, the title and claims 1, 9, 14 and 20 have been amended, claims 2, 10 and 16 were previously cancelled, and no new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the title, Applicant has amended the title to be more clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore, the outstanding objection to the title is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20, Applicant has amended Equation 3 of independent claims 1 and 14 to match the equation originally presented in paragraph [0056] of the specification as filed. In light of the amendment, the outstanding rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 9 and 20, Applicant has amended the claims to remove the previously identified subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding rejection of claims 9 and 20 are withdrawn.
Regarding unlisted “Claim 21”, Applicant, on page 11 of the Remarks, provides “Claim 21 is added reciting “wherein 0.24 < D3/T < 0.47.” ” However, the listing of the claims is not found to recite a claim 21. Absent a fully recited claim, including an indication of dependency, an examination of unrecited subject matter cannot be performed.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20, Applicant asserts that the prior art is not found to teach “a reflective member aligned with the plurality of lenses in a direction of the optical axis and positioned to reflect light from the plurality of lenses in a particular direction to the image sensor, wherein the optical axis and particular direction are substantially perpendicular”. (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shabtay is clearly found to recite a reflective member (e.g., fig. 2A, element 204, [0009], Optical Path Folding Element (OPFE), “e.g., a prism or a mirror”; [0075], OPFE) aligned with the plurality of lenses (e.g., fig. 2A, see lens N elements L1-L4; [0075], “here N=4 numbered L1-L4”) in a direction of the optical axis (e.g., fig. 2A, see indicator 212; [0009], optical path (OP); [0075], OP 212), and positioned to reflect light from the plurality of lenses in a particular direction to the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A, OP 212 reflected at element 204, becoming OP 208; [0075], “OPFE 204 that folds OP 212 to OP 208 and an image sensor”), wherein the optical axis and particular direction are substantially perpendicular (e.g., fig. 2A, see where OPFE 204 reflects OP 212 to OP 208 and to image sensor 206; [0075], “In camera 200, OP 212 is substantially parallel to the y-axis and OP 208 is substantially parallel to the z-axis. OPFE 204 forms an angle of 45 degrees with both the y-axis and the z-axis.”). In light of at least this teaching, the Office stands behind the teaching of the art as applied to the claims as currently presented.
Additional to the recited subject matter of the claims, Applicant asserts “In fact, Shabtay discloses embodiments in which light is not refracted vertically at the reflective member (see below claim 125 and FIG. 2D of Shabtay)” (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner agrees that “Shabtay discloses embodiments in which light is not refracted vertically at the reflective member” (bolding added by Examiner). However, teaching additional embodiments does not overcome or preclude other teachings of Shabtay, such as the teachings of other embodiments of Shabtay and including, but not limited to, the details related to the reflective member taught in association with figure 2A. In light of this, the Office stands behind the teaching of the art as applied to the claims as currently presented.
Applicant also states “Shabtay teaches that ΔLO should be as low as possible.” (Remarks, p. 13). This is seen as an unsupported assertion, because although Shabtay provides that “a small camera bump (i.e., a short BL) is desired”, Shabtay is not found to expressly state that “ΔLO should be as low as possible”, as implied by Applicant; particularly as the BL of figure 1C and the ΔLO of figure 2A related to different configurations, with particular note to the first configuration being prior art that the configurations of Shabtay look to improve upon or differentiate from. Further to this, nowhere in Shabtay is express support found for Applicant’s conclusion “Shabtay's teaching of small camera bumps, it would not be obvious to almost double ΔLO /T1 to arrive at 0.15 to 0.65 (per claims 1 and 14)” (Remarks, p. 13). Given the number of adjustable variables under consideration in Shabtay (including, but not limited to, each lens thickness, the overall LT, the directions being compared/evaluated), as well as the fact that the BL of figure 1C (employed in relation to camera bumps) and the ΔLO of fig. 2A are related to different configurations, one cannot fairly conclude “it would not be obvious” absent an express statement or clear position presented linking camera bumps and the ΔLO of figure 2A. Applicant's arguments further fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant goes on to discuss “flare prevention" and "miniaturization of camera module", and states that “such technical effects are not disclosed in Shabtay” (Remarks, p. 13). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “flare prevention" and "miniaturization of camera module") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant concludes by asserting that “Shabtay does not disclose any design approach that considers the ratio or relationship between optical segments defined by the reflective member (e.g., TTL1, TTL2, or paths corresponding to D1 and D2 of the claims).” (Remarks, p. 14). Again, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In light of the teachings of Shabtay as applied to the claims as currently presented, the Office stands behind the teachings of the prior art.
* * * * * * *
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, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0126051 to Shabtay et al. (hereinafter “Shabtay”)
Regarding claim 1, Shabtay teaches a camera module comprising a camera housing (e.g., fig. 2A, element 214; [0075]), a plurality of lenses at least partially disposed inside the camera housing, the plurality of lenses having an optical axis (e.g., fig. 2A, element 202; [0075]), an image sensor disposed on one side of the camera housing (e.g., fig. 2A, element 206; [0075]), the image sensor forming an image plane, the image plane having a dimension parallel to the optical axis (e.g., fig. 2A), and a reflective member (e.g., fig. 2A, element 204, [0009], Optical Path Folding Element (OPFE), “e.g., a prism or a mirror”; [0075], OPFE) aligned with the plurality of lenses (e.g., fig. 2A, see lens N elements L1-L4; [0075], “here N=4 numbered L1-L4”) in a direction of the optical axis (e.g., fig. 2A, see indicator 212; [0009], optical path (OP); [0075], OP 212), and positioned to reflect light from the plurality of lenses in a particular direction to the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A, OP 212 reflected at element 204, becoming OP 208; [0075], “OPFE 204 that folds OP 212 to OP 208 and an image sensor”), wherein the optical axis and particular direction are substantially perpendicular (e.g., fig. 2A, see where OPFE 204 reflects OP 212 to OP 208 and to image sensor 206; [0075], “In camera 200, OP 212 is substantially parallel to the y-axis and OP 208 is substantially parallel to the z-axis. OPFE 204 forms an angle of 45 degrees with both the y-axis and the z-axis.”), wherein the plurality of lenses includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, and a fourth lens that are sequentially arranged toward the reflective member from an object side (e.g., fig. 2A, elements L1-L4; [0075]), the first lens has a positive refractive power (e.g., claims 14 and 15) and has a lens surface facing the object side formed in a convex shape, the fourth lens has a lens surface facing the reflective member, a ratio of an optical distance between the first lens and the reflective member to an optical distance between the first lens and the image sensor is less than 1 (e.g., fig. 2A), a ratio of an optical distance between the reflective member and the image sensor to the optical distance between the first lens and the reflective member is 1 or more (e.g., fig. 2A), and the optical distance is defined as a length of an optical path that is a path along which light incident on the plurality of lenses along the optical axis passes through the reflective member and travels to the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A), wherein the first lens includes a first lens surface facing the object side and a second lens surface opposite to the first lens surface (e.g., fig. 2A), and the reflective member includes an incidence surface facing the plurality of lenses and an exit surface perpendicular to the incidence surface and facing the image sensor (e.g., [0009], prism).
Although the embodiment of figure 2A of Shabtay is not found to disclose the fourth lens has a lens surface facing the reflective member formed in a concave shape, Shabtay does teach a similar configuration in other embodiments (e.g., figs. 2F and 3E). Absent a disclosure by Applicant of a new and novel lens structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated either lens configuration with earlier embodiment of Shabtay as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Further, Shabtay has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the fourth lens includes a seventh lens surface facing the object side and an eighth lens surface facing the reflective member, and the following Equation 3 is satisfied: 0.15 ≤ D3/T ≤ 0.65, wherein "D3" represents the optical distance between the eighth lens surface of the fourth lens and the incidence surface of the reflective member, and "T" represents a thickness of the first lens on the optical axis. However, Shabtay does teach providing design choices specific to an optical distance between an eighth lens surface of a fourth lens and an incidence surface of a reflective member (e.g. fig, 2A; Table 1, ΔLO) and a thickness of a first lens on the optical axis (e.g. fig, 2A; Table 1, T1; [00131]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the optical distances, lens thicknesses and relative ratio limitations as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within the desired structure.
Regarding claim 3, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the following Equation 1 is satisfied: 0.2 ≤ D1/DT ≤ 0.6 wherein “D1” represents the optical distance between the first lens surface of the first lens and the incidence surface of the reflective member, and “DT” represents the optical distance between the first lens surface of the first lens and the image plane of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A, Table 1, at least embodiment 300, 320 or 330). Further, as Shabtay does teach providing design choices specific to their structure (e.g. Table 1), it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the optical distances as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within a desired structure.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant is not found to teach a new lens structure or overall structural configuration beyond what is found to be taught by the prior art, and instead directs the claim language to design, such as distance determinations.
Regarding claim 4, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the following Equation 2 is satisfied: 1 ≤ D2/D1 ≤ 2.5 wherein “D1” represents the optical distance between the first lens surface of the first lens and the incidence surface of the reflective member, and “D2” represents the optical distance between the exit surface of the reflective member and the image plane of the image sensor. However, Shabtay does teach providing design choices specific to their structure (e.g. Table 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the optical distances as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within a desired structure.
Regarding claim 5, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the optical distance between the first lens and the image sensor is a length from a center point of the first lens surface to the image plane on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A), the optical distance between the first lens and the reflective member is a length from the center point of the first lens surface to the incidence surface on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A), and the optical distance between the reflective member and the image sensor is a length from the exit surface to the image plane on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the reflective member is disposed between the plurality of lenses and the image sensor on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A), and the incidence surface of the reflective member faces one surface of the fourth lens (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism).
Regarding claim 7, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the reflective member further includes a reflective surface that obliquely connects the incidence surface and the exit surface (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism), and external light incident on the incidence surface that has passed through the plurality of lenses is reflected by the reflective surface in a direction perpendicular to an incident direction and exits toward the image sensor through the exit surface (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism).
Regarding claim 8, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the plurality of lenses is configured so that at least two of the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, and the fourth lens are formed as aspherical lenses (e.g., figs. 2F and 3E).
Regarding claim 9, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the second lens includes a third lens surface facing the object side and a fourth lens surface opposite to the third lens surface (e.g., figs. 2A, 2F and 3E), the third lens includes a fifth lens surface facing the object side and a sixth lens surface opposite to the fifth lens surface (e.g., figs. 2A, 2F and 3E), and in the plurality of lenses, the first to eighth lens surfaces are formed as aspherical surfaces (e.g., figs. 2F and 3E).
Regarding claim 11, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10, supra) including teaching wherein the optical distance between the eighth lens surface of the fourth lens and the incidence surface of the reflective member is a length from a center point of the eighth lens surface to the incidence surface on the optical path (e.g. fig, 2A, ΔLO), and a thickness of the first lens on the optical axis is a length from a center point of the first lens surface to a center point of the second lens surface (e.g. [00131], T1).
Regarding claim 12, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the plurality of lenses and the reflective member form a lens optical system of the camera module, and the lens optical system satisfies the following Equation 4: 0.3 < fl/f < 0.6 wherein "f1" represents a focal length of the first lens, and "f' represents a composite focal length of the lens optical system. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the focal lengths of the optical lens system as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within the desired structural size limitations.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant is not found to teach a new lens structure or overall structural configuration beyond what is shown to be taught by the prior art, and instead directs the claim language to design, such as distance determinations.
Regarding claim 13, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 13 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is greater than 30 (e.g., table 2, 84.47), and an Abbe number of the second lens is 30 or less (e.g., table 2, 25.59).
Regarding claim 14, Shabtay teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (e.g., [0008], [0103], [0114] and claims 151 and 152, inherent to smartphones), a display disposed inside the housing to be visually exposed through a front surface of the housing (e.g., [0011], [0103]), and a camera module disposed inside the housing and configured to receive external light through a portion of a region of the housing (e.g., [0011], [0103]), wherein the camera module includes a camera housing (e.g., fig. 2A, element 214; [0075]), a plurality of lenses at least partially disposed inside the camera housing, the plurality of lenses having an optical axis (e.g., fig. 2A, element 202; [0075]), an image sensor disposed on one side of the camera housing (e.g., fig. 2A, element 206; [0075]), the image sensor forming an image plane, the image plane having a dimension parallel to the optical axis of the plurality of lenses (e.g., fig. 2A), and a reflective member (e.g., fig. 2A, element 204, [0009], Optical Path Folding Element (OPFE), “e.g., a prism or a mirror”; [0075], OPFE) aligned with the plurality of lenses (e.g., fig. 2A, see lens N elements L1-L4; [0075], “here N=4 numbered L1-L4”) in a direction of the optical axis (e.g., fig. 2A, see indicator 212; [0009], optical path (OP); [0075], OP 212), and positioned to reflect light from the plurality of lenses in a particular direction to the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A, OP 212 reflected at element 204, becoming OP 208; [0075], “OPFE 204 that folds OP 212 to OP 208 and an image sensor”), wherein the optical axis and particular direction are substantially perpendicular (e.g., fig. 2A, see where OPFE 204 reflects OP 212 to OP 208 and to image sensor 206; [0075], “In camera 200, OP 212 is substantially parallel to the y-axis and OP 208 is substantially parallel to the z-axis. OPFE 204 forms an angle of 45 degrees with both the y-axis and the z-axis.”), the plurality of lenses includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, and a fourth lens that are sequentially arranged toward the reflective member from an object side (e.g., fig. 2A, elements L1-L4; [0075]), the reflective member includes an incidence surface facing the fourth lens and an exit surface perpendicular to the incidence surface and facing the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism), the first lens has a positive refractive power (e.g., claims 14 and 15) and has a lens surface on the object side formed in a convex shape, the fourth lens has a lens surface on a reflective member side facing the reflective member, a ratio of an optical distance between the first lens and the reflective member to an optical distance between the first lens and the image sensor is less than 1 (e.g., fig. 2A), a ratio of an optical distance between the reflective member and the image sensor to the optical distance between the first lens and the reflective member is 1 or more (e.g., fig. 2A), and the optical distance is defined as a length of an optical path that is a path along which external light incident on the plurality of lenses along the optical axis passes through the reflective member and travels to the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A), wherein the first lens includes a first lens surface facing the object side and a second lens surface opposite to the first lens surface (e.g., fig. 2A), and the reflective member includes an incidence surface facing the plurality of lenses and an exit surface perpendicular to the incidence surface and facing the image sensor (e.g., [0009], prism).
Although the embodiment of figure 2A of Shabtay is not found to disclose the fourth lens has a lens surface facing the reflective member formed in a concave shape, Shabtay does teach a similar configuration in other embodiments (e.g., figs. 2F and 3E). Absent a disclosure by Applicant of a new and novel lens structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated either lens configuration with earlier embodiment of Shabtay as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Further, Shabtay has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the fourth lens includes a seventh lens surface facing the object side and an eighth lens surface facing the reflective member, and the following Equation 3 is satisfied: 0.15 ≤ D3/T ≤ 0.65, wherein "D3" represents the optical distance between the eighth lens surface of the fourth lens and the incidence surface of the reflective member, and "T" represents a thickness of the first lens on the optical axis. However, Shabtay does teach providing design choices specific to an optical distance between an eighth lens surface of a fourth lens and an incidence surface of a reflective member (e.g. fig, 2A; Table 1, ΔLO) and a thickness of a first lens on the optical axis (e.g. fig, 2A; Table 1, T1; [00131]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the optical distances, lens thicknesses and relative ratio limitations as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within a desired structure.
Regarding claim 15, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the camera module satisfies the following Equation 1 0.2 ≤ D1/DT ≤ 0.6, wherein “D1” represents the optical distance between the lens surface on an object side of the first lens and the incidence surface of the reflective member, “DT” represents the optical distance between the lens surface on an object side of the first lens and the image plane of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2A, Table 1, at least embodiment 300, 320 or 330). Further, as Shabtay does teach providing design choices specific to their structure (e.g. Table 1), it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the optical distances as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within a desired structure. Shabtay is not found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the following Equation 2 is satisfied: 1 ≤ D2/D1 ≤ 2.5 wherein “D2” represents the optical distance between the exit surface of the reflective member and the image plane of the image sensor. However, Shabtay does teach providing design choices specific to their structure (e.g. Table 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have determined the optical distances as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to receive a desired optical result within a desired structure.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant is not found to teach a new lens structure or overall structural configuration beyond what is found to be taught by the prior art, and instead directs the claim language to design, such as distance determinations.
Regarding claim 17, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching wherein the optical distance between the first lens and the image sensor is a length from a center point of the first lens surface to the image plane on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A), the optical distance between the first lens and the reflective member is a length from the center point of the first lens surface to the incidence surface on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A), and the optical distance between the reflective member and the image sensor is a length from the exit surface to the image plane on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 18, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching wherein the reflective member is disposed between the plurality of lenses and the image sensor on the optical path (e.g., fig. 2A), and the incidence surface of the reflective member faces one surface of the fourth lens (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism).
Regarding claim 19, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching wherein the reflective member further includes a reflective surface that obliquely connects the incidence surface and the exit surface (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism), and external light incident on the incidence surface that has passed through the plurality of lenses is reflected by the reflective surface in a direction perpendicular to an incident direction and exits toward the image sensor through the exit surface (e.g., fig. 2A; [0009], prism).
Regarding claim 20, Shabtay teaches all the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching wherein the second lens includes a third lens surface facing the object side and a fourth lens surface opposite to the third lens surface (e.g., figs. 2A, 2F and 3E), the third lens includes a fifth lens surface facing the object side and a sixth lens surface opposite to the fifth lens surface (e.g., figs. 2A, 2F and 3E), and in the plurality of lenses, the first to eighth lens surfaces are formed as aspherical surfaces (e.g., figs. 2F and 3E).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638