DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Pre-amendment
The present office action is made in response to the pre-amendment filed by applicant on 01/10/2025. It is noted that in the pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the abstract, the specification and the claim(s). There was not any change being made to the drawings.
A) Regarding the abstract, applicant has submitted a substitute abstract in a separate sheet;
B) Regarding the specification, applicant has made changes to pages 1 and 23-24; and
C) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claim 12. There was not any claim being added/canceled into/from the application. The pending claims are claims 1-14 which claims are examined in the present office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings contain twenty two sheets of figures 1, 2A-2D, 3, 4A-4D, 5, 6A-6D, 7, 8A-8D and 9-10 were received on 01/10/2025. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reason(s).
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons.
First, the numbers in each of figures 2B, 6B and 8B are unclear/not proper. In particular, what does applicant mean by “-020” (figs. 2B and 6B) or “020” (fig. 8B)? and
Second, numbers shown in fig. 6A are unclear. It is unclear about the dark dot after “Fn”, before “.15”, …
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 01/10/2025 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The Summary of Invention is objected to because it contains information/comparison the invention with the prior art, see paragraph [0004], for example.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In each of claims 5-7: on lines 4-5 of each claim, “sixth lens, and f is defined as the focal length of the entire optical system” should be changed to --sixth lens.--. Applicant should note that a definition/explanation of the parameter “f” was provided/recited in base claim 1 (see claim 1 on lines 13-14) of each mentioned claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
a) “an information processing apparatus” as recited in claim 13; and
b) “an output apparatus” as recited in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reason(s).
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because it is unclear about the structural relationship between “an imaging lens system” having sixth lenses and an iris as recited in the claim on lines 1-9 and the so-called “an entire optical system” as recited in the claim on line 14.
What does applicant mean by “an entire optical system”? How can “an entire optical system”, which is understood as a device/apparatus having both optical elements and mechanical elements, have a focal length?
For the purpose of examination, the feature thereof “f is defined as a focal length of an entire optical system” is understood as --f is defined as a focal length of the imaging lens system--.
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
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 1-2, 8-9 and 12, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baba (US Publication No. 2016/0238831, submitted by applicant).
Baba discloses an imaging lens system for use in an optical device such as an endoscope.
a) Regarding present claim 1, the imaging lens system of the Example 3 as described in paragraphs [0090]-[0091] and shown in fig. 3 comprises the following features:
a1) A first negative lens (L1), a second negative lens (L2), a third positive lens (L3), a stop (St), a fourth positive lens (L4), a fifth positive lens (L5) and a sixth negative lens (L6) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens system;
a2) the first negative lens (L1) has a concave image-side lens surface (2) facing the image side, the second negative lens (L2) has a concave image-side lens surface (4) facing the image side, the third positive lens (L3) has a convex object-side lens surface (4) facing the object side, and the fourth positive lens (L4) has a convex image-side lens surface (8) facing the image side;
a3) the fifth (L5) and sixth (L6) lenses are cemented/bonded together;
a4) from data of the lenses constituted the imaging lens system as provided in Table 5 then:
a41) the focal length of the fourth positive lens is around 2.84 mm and the focal length of the imaging lens system is around 1.00 mm then the ratio of f4/f is 2.84 which is inside the range of (2.3; 3.9); and
a42) the Abbe’s number of the fourth positive lens (L4) is 81.54 which is larger than 55.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
Note that the focal length of a lens is calculated by the following formula:
1
f
=
n
-
1
1
r
1
-
1
r
2
+
d
(
n
-
1
)
2
n
r
1
r
2
where f is a focal length, n is a refractive index, r1 and r2 are radius of curvature of the object-side lens surface and the image-side lens surface, and d is a thickness of the lens.
b) Regarding present claim 2, since the fourth lens (L4) of the imaging lens system of the Example 3 has its Abbe’s number larger than 55 as claimed in the present claim 1 thus it is expected that the temperature coefficient of a refractive index in a d-line of the fourth positive lens of the Example 3 provided by Baba meets the condition as recited in present claim 2.
c) Regarding present claims 8-9, the d-line refractive index, nd1, of the first negative lens (L1) is 2.001 which is larger than 1.9 as claimed.
d) Regarding present claim 12, the imaging lens system of the Example 3 is used in an optical device such as an endoscope which device as understood comprises a camera module having a capture element for converting light from an object passing through the imaging lens system, see Baba in paragraph [0004], for example.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 12 as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al (US Publication No. 2012/0170142).
Hsieh et al discloses an imaging lens system for use in an optical device such as mobile phone camera, webcam, automobile lens assembly, …, see paragraphs [0005]-[0006].
a) Regarding present claim 1, the imaging lens system of the Embodiment 4 as described in paragraphs [0134]-[0159]] and shown in fig. 4A comprises the following features:
a1) A first negative lens (410), a second negative lens (420), a third positive lens (430), an aperture stop (400), a fourth positive lens (440), a fifth positive lens (450) and a sixth negative lens (460) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens system;
a2) the first negative lens (410) has a concave image-side lens surface (412) facing the image side, the second negative lens (420) has a concave image-side lens surface (422) facing the image side, the third positive lens (430) has a convex object-side lens surface (431) facing the object side, and the fourth positive lens (440) has a convex image-side lens surface (442) facing the image side;
a3) the fifth (450) and sixth (460) lenses are cemented/bonded together;
a4) from data of the lenses constituted the imaging lens system as provided in Table 4 then:
a41) the focal length of the fourth positive lens is around 8.29 mm and the focal length of the imaging lens system is around 2.68 mm then the ratio of f4/f is 3.09 which is inside the range of (2.3; 3.9); and
a42) the Abbe’s number of the fourth positive lens (L4) is 60.3 which is larger than 55.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
b) Regarding present claim 2, since the fourth lens (440) of the imaging lens system of the Embodiment 4 has its Abbe’s number larger than 60.3 as claimed in the present claim 1 thus it is expected that the temperature coefficient of a refractive index in a d-line of the fourth positive lens of the Embodiment 4 provided by Hsieh et al meets the condition as recited in present claim 2.
c) Regarding present claims 5-6, the focal length, f, of the imaging lens is 2.68 mm, the focal length, f5, of the fifth lens is 3.80 mm and the focal length, f6, of the sixth lens is -5.55 mm, see Table 4, then the combined/composite focal length, f56, of the fifth and sixth lenses is around 12.05 mm then the ratio of f56/f is around 4.50 which is inside thew range of (4.3; 6.0).
Note that the combined/composite focal length of a lens is calculated by the following formula:
1
f
a
b
=
1
f
a
+
1
f
b
-
d
f
a
f
b
where fab is a combined/composite focal length of a lens, fa is a focal length of the first lens, fb is a focal length of the second lens, and d is a gap/space between the first and second lenses.
d) Regarding present claim 12, the imaging lens system of the Embodiment 4 is used in an optical device such as such as mobile phone camera, webcam, automobile lens assembly, …, see paragraphs [0005]-[0006], which device as understood comprises a camera module having a capture element for converting light from an object passing through the imaging lens system.
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 1-4, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki (US Publication No. 2020/0371321) in view of Chang (US Publication No.015/0277088).
Kanzaki discloses an imaging lens system for use in an optical device such as an image pickup system, see paragraph [0002].
a) Regarding present claim 1, the imaging lens system of the First Embodiment as described in paragraphs [0033]-[0055] and shown in fig. 1 comprises the following features:
a1) a first negative lens (10), a second negative lens (20), a third positive lens (30), an aperture stop (80), a fourth positive lens (40), a fifth negative lens (50) and a sixth positive lens (60) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens system;
a2) the first negative lens (10) has a concave image-side lens surface (102) facing the image side, the second negative lens (20) has a concave image-side lens surface (22) facing the image side, and the fourth positive lens (40) has a convex image-side lens surface (41) facing the image side;
a3) the fifth (50) and sixth (60 lenses are cemented/bonded together;
a4) from data of the lenses constituted the imaging lens system as provided in Table 1 then:
a41) the focal length of the fourth positive lens is around 2.708 mm and the focal length of the imaging lens system is around 0.914 mm then the ratio of f4/f is 2.96 which is inside the range of (2.3; 3.9); and
a42) the Abbe’s number of the fourth positive lens (40) is 55.3 which is larger than 55.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
The only feature missing from the imaging lens system of the First Embodiment provided by Kanzaki is that Kanzaki does not discloses that the object-side lens surface (31) of the third positive lens (30) is a convex lens surface facing the object side of the imaging lens system as claimed.
However, an imaging lens system having a first negative lens, a second negative lens, a third positive lens, an aperture stop, a fourth positive lens, a fifth negative lens and a sixth positive lens, arranged in an order from an object side to an image side of the lens system,
and the fifth and sixth lenses are cemented/bonded together wherein the object-side lens surface of the third positive lens is a concave or a convex lens surface facing the object side of the lens system is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the imaging lens system provided by Chang.
In particular, Chang discloses an imaging lens system having a first negative lens, a second negative lens, a third positive lens, an aperture stop, a fourth positive lens, a fifth negative lens and a sixth positive lens, arranged in an order from an object side to an image side of the lens system, and the fifth and sixth lenses are cemented/bonded together. Regarding the object-side lens surface of the third lens, in the third embodiment, Chang discloses that object-side lens surface of the third positive lens is a concave lens surface facing the object side of the lens system; however, in each of the first and second embodiments, Chang discloses that object-side lens surface of the third positive lens is a convex lens surface facing the object side of the lens system. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging lens system of the First Embodiment provided by Kanzaki by using a third positive lens having a convex object-side lens surface instead of a concave object-side lens surface as suggested by Chang to meet a particular application/design.
b) Regarding present claim 2, since the fourth lens (40) of the imaging lens system of the First Embodiment as provided by Kanzaki has its Abbe’s number larger than 55 as claimed in the present claim 1 thus it is expected that the temperature coefficient of a refractive index in a d-line of the fourth positive lens of the First Embodiment provided by Kanzaki meets the condition as recited in present claim 2.
c) Regarding present claims 3-4, the imaging lens system of the First Embodiment provided by Kanzaki comprises a first negative lens (10) made by glass, a second negative lens (20) made by plastic, a third positive lens (30) made by plastic, a fourth positive lens (40) made by glass, a fifth negative lens (50) made by plastic and a sixth positive lens (60) made by plastic, see Kanzaki in paragraph [0036].
20. Claims 3-4 and 7-8, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al in view of Kanzaki (US Publication No. 2020/037132321).
Regarding present claims 3-4, it is noted that Hsieh et al discloses that glass is used to make each of the lenses constituted the imaging lens system of the Embodiment 4. Hsieh et al does not disclose that plastic is sued to make the second, third, fifth and sixth lenses as claimed. However, an imaging lens system having six lenses wherein the second, third, fifth and sixth lenses of the lens system is made by plastic material is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the imaging lens system provided by Kanzaki. In particular, Kanzaki discloses an imaging lens system for use in an optical device such as an image pickup system wherein the imaging lens system comprises a first negative lens (10) made by glass, a second negative lens (20) made by plastic, a third positive lens (30) made by plastic, a fourth positive lens (40) made by glass, a fifth negative lens (50) made by plastic and a sixth positive lens (60) made by plastic, see Kanzaki in paragraph [0036]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging lens system provided by Hsieh et al by using plastic material for making the second, third, fifth and sixth lenses as suggested by Kanzaki to reduce the weight of the imaging lens system.
Regarding present claims 7-8, such features are disclosed by Hsieh et al. In particular, in the imaging lens system provided by Hsieh et al, the focal length, f, of the imaging lens is 2.68 mm, the focal length, f5, of the fifth lens is 3.80 mm and the focal length, f6, of the sixth lens is -5.55 mm, see Table 4, then the combined/composite focal length, f56, of the fifth and sixth lenses is around 12.05 mm then the ratio of f56/f is around 4.50 which is inside thew range of (4.3; 6.0).
21. Claims 9-11, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al in view of Cai (US Publication No. 2017/0153418).
In the imaging lens system of the Embodiment 4 provided by Hsieh et al, Hsieh et al does not disclose that the first lens is made by material having a refractive index in a d-line larger than 1.9 as recited in each of claims 9-11; however, a selection of material for making the first lens wherein the material having a refractive index in a d-line larger than 1.9 would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
A typical example of selection material with different refractive indexes for the first lens of an imaging lens system having six lenses provided by Cai. In particular, in the embodiment shown in Table 2, the first lens has a refractive index in a d-line is 1.770652; however, in the embodiment shown in Table 1, the first lens has a refractive index in a d-line is 1.905597.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select material with high refractive index the first lens of an imaging lens system having six lenses as suggested by Cai to meet a particular application/design.,
22. Claims 13-14, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al in view of Matsunaga (US Patent No. 10,302.918).
It is noted that while Hsieh et al discloses an imaging lens system for use in an optical device such as mobile phone camera, webcam, automobile lens assembly, …, see paragraphs [0005]-[0006], Hsieh et al does not positively disclose that the optical device having an information processing apparatus for processing captured images and an output apparatus for outputting information to an observer as claimed. However, an optical device having an imaging lens system ad sensing device for use in an automobile/vehicle wherein optical device having an information processing apparatus for processing captured images and an output apparatus for outputting information to an observer is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the optical device mounted in a vehicle provided by Matsunaga. In particular, Matsunaga discloses a camera module having an imaging lens system, a sensing device, an image processing apparatus for processing images of object(s)/screen formed by the imaging lens system and an output apparatus for outputting information to an observer, see columns 8-9 and figs. 11-12.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing sate of the invention to utilize the optical device having an imaging lens system and a sensing system provided by Hsieh et al in an optical device having an imaging lens system, a sensing device, an image processing apparatus for processing images of object(s)/screen formed by the imaging lens system and an output apparatus for outputting information to an observer as suggested by Matsunaga for the purpose of providing a vehicle operation information of object(s)/screen surrounding the vehicle during its operation.
Conclusion
23 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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 B. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights