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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 4/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/12/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 5/15/2024 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 15-16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the first direction” and “the second direction” in parentheses in the last three lines of the claim. Examiner suggests deleting the parentheses.
Claim 15 recites “the first direction” in parentheses in the third line of the claim. Examiner suggests deleting the parentheses.
Claim 16 states the range 2.0 < TTL/SumT) < 3.0, this should be amended to say 2.0 < TTL/SumT < 3.0.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claims 1 and 17 recite the genus “a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having a convex object-side surface, a fourth lens having refractive power, a fifth lens having refractive power, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane” for a 6-lens system but fails to provide any tables including each of the necessary species of powers which would evidence possession of the entire claimed genus of “a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having a convex object-side surface, a fourth lens having refractive power, a fifth lens having refractive power, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane” for a 6-lens system (MPEP 2163.ii.A.3.a.ii - A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
As discussed above, claim 1 covers the entire genus of a 6-lens system having a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having a convex object-side surface, a fourth lens having refractive power, a fifth lens having refractive power, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane which fall within the claimed ranges of TTL/f < 1.0 and 0.9<f1/f4 <1.4, yet Applicant has disclosed only three species of powers – two for a six-lens system (+-++-+) and (+-++--) and one for a seven-lens species with (+-++---) which include these characteristics. These are not a sufficient number of species of powers to evidence possession of the entire claimed genus. Since none of the lenses have any specified refractive powers, this leaves six lenses in the system with arbitrary power which fall within the claimed ranges of TTL/f < 1.0 and 0.9<f1/f4 <1.4. In terms of combinations of power distributions that would meet these qualifications, this would lead to having
2
6
=
64
remaining combinations for positive or negative power lenses, and
3
6
=
729
remaining combinations for positive, negative, or zero power lenses which meet the claimed range for a six-lens system. In other words, Applicant has failed to disclose a representative number of species to evidence possession of the entire genus (MPEP 2163.II.A.3.ii).
Further, regarding claim 17, the claim covers the entire genus of a 6-lens system having a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having a convex object-side surface, a fourth lens having refractive power, a fifth lens having refractive power, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane which fall within the claimed range of 0.20<D56/BFL<0.50, yet Applicant has disclosed only three species of powers – two for a six-lens system (+-++-+) and (+-++--) and one for a seven-lens species with (+-++---) which include these characteristics. These are not a sufficient number of species of powers to evidence possession of the entire claimed genus. Since none of the lenses have any specified refractive powers, this leaves six lenses in the system with arbitrary power which fall within the claimed range of 0.20<D56/BFL<0.50. In terms of combinations of power distributions that would meet these qualifications, this would lead to having
2
6
=
64
remaining combinations for positive or negative power lenses, and
3
6
=
729
remaining combinations for positive, negative, or zero power lenses which meet the claimed range for a six-lens system. In other words, Applicant has failed to disclose a representative number of species to evidence possession of the entire genus (MPEP 2163.II.A.3.ii).
Similarly, claim 8 recites the genus “a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having refractive power, a fourth lens having a convex image-side surface, a fifth lens having concave object-side surface, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane” for a 6-lens system but fails to provide any tables including each of the necessary species of powers which would evidence possession of the entire claimed genus of “a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having refractive power, a fourth lens having a convex image-side surface, a fifth lens having concave object-side surface, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane” for a 6-lens system (MPEP 2163.ii.A.3.a.ii - A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
As discussed above, Applicant’s claims cover the entire genus of a first lens having refractive power, a second lens having refractive power, a third lens having refractive power, a fourth lens having a convex image-side surface, a fifth lens having concave object-side surface, and a sixth lens having refractive power, wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane which fall within the claimed range of TTL/f < 1.0 and meet the required effective radius characteristics, yet Applicant has disclosed only two species of powers – two for a six-lens system (+-++-+) and (+-++--) and one for a seven-lens species with (+-++---) which include these characteristics. These are not a sufficient number of species of powers to evidence possession of the entire claimed genus. Since none of the lenses have a specified refractive power, this leaves seven to eight lenses in the system with arbitrary power which fall within the claimed range of TTL/f < 1.0 and have the required effective radius characteristics. In terms of combinations of power distributions that would meet these qualifications, this would lead to having
2
6
=
64
remaining combinations for positive or negative power lenses, and
3
6
=
729
remaining combinations for positive, negative, or zero power lenses for a six-lens system. In other words, Applicant has failed to disclose a representative number of species to evidence possession of the entire genus (MPEP 2163.II.A.3.ii).
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 13 and 15 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 13, claims recite the limitation “a long axis direction” and “a short axis direction” in the last three lines of the claim. These limitations are unclear because what is meant by a long axis direction or a short axis direction is not specified. Are the “long axis” and the “short axis” related to what is shown in instant Figure 27 with Xc and Yc, or can these be flipped so that the long axis is along Yc and the short axis is along Xc? Can the two axes run along the lens in any direction so long as they intersect the optical axis, or are they confined to specific directions of the lens? Are these axes orthogonal to each other, or is their only requirement to pass through the optical axis at the center of the lens? Due to these limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret these axes to correspond to the height and width of a lens.
Regarding claim 15, claim states the limitation “the long axis direction” in the third line of the claim. This limitation is unclear because what is meant by a long axis direction is not specified. Is the “long axis” related to what is shown in instant Figure 27 with Xc, or can the long axis be in any direction so long as it intersects the optical axis? What determines the direction of the long axis? Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this axis to correspond to the width of the lens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine US 20140355134 (hereinafter “Sekine”).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L1) having refractive power (Sekine table 8);
a second lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L2) having refractive power (Sekine table 8);
a third lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L3) having a convex object-side surface (Sekine table 8);
a fourth lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L4) having refractive power (Sekine table 8);
a fifth lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L5) having refractive power (Sekine table 8); and
a sixth lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L6) having refractive power (Sekine table 8),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Sekine fig. 15), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
TTL/f<1.0 (Sekine para. 0045 and conditional expression 10 teach a range TTL/f<1.6 which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)), and
0.9<f1/f4<1.4 (Sekine table 8 Constituent Lens Data f1/f4 ≈ 1.4),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 2, Sekine teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the first lens (L1) has a convex object-side surface (Sekine fig. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the second lens (L2) has a concave image-side surface (Sekine fig. 15).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et. al US 20210018725 (hereinafter “Hsu”).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having refractive power (Hsu fig. 1 – 110; fig. 15 – 810; fig. 17 – 910);
a second lens having refractive power (Hsu fig. 1 – 120; fig. 15 – 820; fig. 17 – 920);
a third lens having a convex object-side surface (Hsu fig. 1 – 130, 131 is convex on the object side, see also para. 0097; fig. 15 – 830, 831 is convex on the object side, see also para. 0217; fig. 17 – 930, 931 is convex on the object side, see also para. 0228);
a fourth lens having refractive power (Hsu fig. 1 – 140; fig. 15 – 840; fig. 17 – 940);
a fifth lens having refractive power (Hsu fig. 1 – 150; fig. 15 – 850; fig. 17 – 950); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Hsu fig. 1 – 160; fig. 15 – 860; fig. 17 – 960),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Hsu fig. 1-18), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
TTL/f<1.0 (Hsu para. 0069 – 0.6<TL/f<1.0 which lies within the claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03), and para. 0131 and 0224 teach TL/f = 1.01 ≈ 1.0; para. 0235 teaches TL/f = 1.03 ≈ 1.0), and
0.9<f1/f4<1.4 (Hsu para. 0071 - |f1/f4|<1.35 which overlaps the claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 2, Hsu teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hsu further teaches wherein the first lens (110; 810; 910) has a convex object-side surface (Hsu fig. 1 – 111 is convex on the object side; Hsu fig. 15 – 811 is convex on the object side; Hsu fig. 17 – 911 is convex on the object side; ).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hsu further teaches wherein the second lens (120; 820; 920) has a concave image-side surface (Hsu fig. 1 – 122 is concave on the image side; Hsu fig. 15 – 822 is concave on the image side; Hsu fig. 17 – 922 is concave on the image side).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hsu further teaches wherein the fourth lens (140; 940) has a convex object-side surface (Hsu fig. 1 – 141 is convex on the object side; Hsu fig. 17 – 941 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hsu further teaches wherein the fifth lens (150; 950) has a concave object-side surface (Hsu fig. 1 – 151 has a concave object side; Hsu fig. 17 – 951 is concave on the object side).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hsu further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
2.0<TTL/BFL<3.0 (Hsu para. 0224 and table 15, 12.31/5.83 ≈ 2.11; para. 0235 and table 17, 12.40/6.15 ≈ 2.0),
where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, to the imaging plane.
Regarding claim 7, Hsu teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hsu further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.42<ImgHT/BFL<0.60 (Hsu table 15, 2.7/5.83 ≈ 0.46),
where ImgHT is a height of the imaging plane, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, to the imaging plane.
Claims 8-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et. al US 20210048630 (hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding claim 8, Liao teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having refractive power (Liao fig. 5 - 310);
a second lens having refractive power (Liao fig. 5 - 320);
a third lens having refractive power (Liao fig. 5 - 330);
a fourth lens having a convex image-side surface (Liao fig. 5 – 340, has 342 which is convex on the image side, see also para. 0162);
a fifth lens having a concave object-side surface (Liao fig. 5 – 350, has 351 which is concave on the object side, see also para. 0163); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Liao fig. 5 - 360),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Liao fig. 5),
wherein one or more of the first lens to the sixth lens are formed such that an effective radius (Xc) in a first direction, intersecting an optical axis, is different from an effective radius (Yc) in a second direction, intersecting the optical axis (Liao fig. 19-22, 26-27 and para. 0057, the trimmed lenses would have an effective radius Xc in a first direction different from an effective radius Yc in a second direction), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
TTL/f<1.0 (Liao para. 0063 – 0.75<TL/f<1.0 which lies within the claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03), and para. 0168 teaches TL/f = 0.97),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
Regarding claim 9, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the first lens (310) has a convex object-side surface (Liao fig. 5 – 311 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 10, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the second lens (320) has a concave image-side surface (Liao fig. 5 – 322 is concave on the image side).
Regarding claim 11, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the third lens (330) has a convex object-side surface (Liao fig. 5 – 331 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 12, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the sixth lens (360) has a convex object-side surface (Liao fig. 5 – 361 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 13, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.5<AR1<1.0 (Liao fig. 20, where LRmin is Yc1 and LRmax is Xc1, para. 0079 teaches 0.50<LRmin/LRmax<0.85, which lies within the claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)),
where AR1 is a ratio (Yc1/Xc1) of an effective radius (Yc1) in a short axis direction (the second direction) of the first lens and an effective radius (Xc1) in a long axis direction (the first direction) of the first lens.
Regarding claim 14, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0<(D12+D23)/D34<0.5 (Liao table 5, (0.035+0.161)/(0.41+0.262) ≈ 0.29),
where D12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens, D23 is a distance from an image-side surface of the second lens to an object-side surface of the third lens, and D34 is a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 16, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
2.0<TTL/SumT)<3.0 (Liao table 5 and para. 0168, TTL ≈ 13.43 as calculated, SumT ≈ 5.68 as calculated, 13.43/5.68 ≈ 2.37),
where SumT is a sum of thicknesses of all lenses disposed between an object and the imaging plane.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimoto et. al US 20020126397 (hereinafter “Fujimoto”).
Regarding claim 17, Fujimoto teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having refractive power (Fujimoto fig. 1 – G1);
a second lens having refractive power (Fujimoto fig. 1 – G2);
a third lens having a convex object-side surface (Fujimoto fig. 1 – G3, which is convex on the object side);
a fourth lens having refractive power (Fujimoto fig. 1 – G4);
a fifth lens having refractive power (Fujimoto fig. 1 – G5); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Fujimoto fig. 1 – G6),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Fujimoto fig. 1), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
0.2<D56/BFL<0.50 (Fujimoto para. 0087 First numerical embodiment, D56 = d8 = 17.38, BFL = d25 = 37, 17.38/37 ≈ 0.46),
where D56 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object-side surface of the sixth lens and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the sixth lens to the imaging plane.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et. al US 20210048630 (hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding claim 15, Liao teaches the imaging lens system of claim 8.
Though Liao does not specify wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.3<Xc1/SumT<0.8, where Xc1 is an effective radius in a long axis direction (the first direction) of the first lens, and SumT is a sum of thicknesses of all lenses disposed between an object and the imaging plane, Liao does teach where SumT ≈ 5.68 as calculated from table 5, and LRmax = 5.40 [mm] in para. 0236. LRmax/SumT ≈ 0.95, which is just outside the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to scale LRmax for a value within the claimed range of 0.3<Xc1/SumT<0.8, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale LRmax since reducing one axial dimension of any single lens element would allow for further miniaturization of the imaging lens assembly (Liao para. 0079), or may allow the controlling of light along a particular axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references teach the power distribution +-++-+: Tang et. al US 20160124184 and US 20160041369, Huang et. al Huang US 20170108665;
Hsu et. al US Patent 11,262,545, patent of Hsu et. al US 20210018725;
Liao et. al US Patent 11,391,919, patent of Liao et. al US 20210048630.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights