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 Amendment
The amendment filed on July 20, 2026 has been entered. Claim 4 has been canceled in the present application. Claim 18 is new in the present application. Claims 1, 2, and 17 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 22, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "LD" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “LD” as a distance on the optical axis from the lens surface closest to the object side to the image plane as stated in claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtake et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0152556 – hereinafter referred to as “Ohtake”).
Regarding claim 1, Ohtake teaches an optical system (Figure 19A) comprising a first lens unit having positive refractive power (Figure 19A lens group G1, [0346] G1 has positive refractive power), a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (Figure 21A focusing group GF) and configured to move in focusing ([0346]), and a third lens unit having negative refractive power (Figure 19A lens group GR, [0346] lens group GR has negative refractive power) that are arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Figure 19A lens groups G1, GF, and GR are arranged in order),
wherein each distance between adjacent two of the lens units changes in focusing (Table 10 Variable distance data: distance between G1 and GF changes and distance between GF and GR changes),
wherein a lens arranged closest to an image side in the third lens unit, is a cemented lens ([0350] cemented lens composed of lenses L20, L21, and L22 formed by cementing a negative lens A ([0350] L22 is negative) and a positive lens arranged on the object side of the negative lens A (Figure 19A L21 is on object side of L22, [0350] L21 is positive), and
wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequalities:
0.10 < TL3/TL < 0.40 (Table 10 Lens specifications: TL3 calculated to be 60.563 mm, TL calculated to be 244.091 mm, TL3/TL = 0.25),
where TL is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side to a lens surface closest to the image side, TL3 is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the third lens unit to a lens surface closest to the image side in the third lens unit, DM3 is the largest of the thicknesses, on the optical axis, of the lenses in the third lens unit, f3 is a focal length of the third lens unit, and f is a focal length of the optical system at infinity focusing.
Ohtake further teaches DM3/TL3 = 0.149 (Table 10 Lens specifications: DM3 = 9 mm, TL3 calculated to be 60.563 mm, DM3/TL3 = 0.149) and f3/f = -0.178 (Table 10 Focal length data of groups: f3 = -139.187 mm, f = 780 mm) but fails to teach 0.05 < DM3/TL3 < 0.14 and -0.171 < f3/f < -0.10. In this instance, 0.149 and -0.178 are close to the claimed ranges of 0.05 < DM3/TL3 < 0.14 and -0.171 < f3/f < -0.10, respectively. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
As such, the disclosed lens system of Ohtake would have made the claimed system obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing and through routine optimization of the lens system.
Regarding claim 2, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequality:0.45 < LD/f < 0.80 (Table 10 General specification: LD = 351.452 mm, f = 780 mm, LD/f = 0.451), where LD is a distance on the optical axis from the lens surface closest to the object side to an image plane, and f is a focal length of the optical system at infinity focusing.
Regarding claim 3, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequality:0.15 <BF/LD< 0.27 (Table 10 General specification: BF = 92.159 mm, LD = 351.452 mm, BF/LD = 0.26), where BF is a distance on the optical axis from the lens surface closest to the image side to an image plane, and LD is a distance on the optical axis from the lens surface closest to the object side to the image plane.
Regarding claim 5, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches vd3P = 70.32 (Table 10 Lens specification, [0350] L10 is a positive lens) but fails to teach 73 < vd3P< 97, where vd3P is an Abbe number of a lens based on a d-line, the lens having the largest Abbe number based on the d-line among positive lenses included in the third lens unit. In this instance, 70.32 is close to the claimed range of 73 < vd3P< 97. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). As such, the disclosed lens system of Ohtake would have made the claimed system obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing.
Regarding claim 6, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequality:1.85 < nd3N < 2.2 (Table 10 Lens specifications: lens from surfaces 27-28 has a calculated focal length of -27.16 mm, nd3N = 1.92286), where nd3N is a refractive index of a lens relative to a d- line, the lens having the largest refractive index relative to the d-line among negative lenses included in the third lens unit.
Regarding claim 7, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the third lens unit includes a first subunit (Figure 19A lens L10), a second subunit (cemented lens composed of L11 and L12 and single lens L13), and a third subunit (lenses L16-L22) that are arranged in order from the object side to the image side (lenses L10-L13 and L16-L22 are arranged in order),
wherein the first subunit and the third subunit are configured not to move in image blur correction (Figure 19A VR; only second subunit composed of L11-L13 moves for blur correction, [0353]) and
wherein the second subunit is configured to move in a direction containing a component in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis in the image blur correction (Figure 19A VR, [0356] second subunit composed L11-L13 moves for blur correction).
Regarding claim 8, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Ohtake further teaches the first subunit has positive refractive power ([0350] lens L10 is positive).
Regarding claim 9, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Ohtake further teaches the second subunit has negative refractive power (Table 10 Lens specification: focal length of lenses L11-L13 calculated to be -70.65 mm).
Regarding claim 10, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Ohtake further teaches the third subunit has negative refractive power (Table 10 Lens specification: focal length of lenses L16-L22 calculated to be -192.62 mm).
Regarding claim 11, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the second lens unit has negative refractive power ([0346] GF has negative refractive power).
Regarding claim 12, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Ohtake further teaches the second lens unit is configured to move to the image side in focusing from an infinity side to a short distance side (Figure 19A lens group GF moves towards image side during focusing, [0352]).
Regarding claim 13, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the second lens unit consists of one lens (Figure 21A, [0364] lens group GF consists of lens L7).
Regarding claim 15, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches the first lens unit and the third lens unit are configured not to move in focusing (Figure 19A, [0352] only lens group GF moves during focusing).
Regarding claim 16, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches an aperture stop is disposed between the first lens unit and the second lens unit (Figure 19A, [0346] aperture stop S is disposed between lens groups G1 and GF).
Regarding claim 17, Ohtake teaches an imaging apparatus (Figure 23) comprising:
an optical system (Figure 19A); and
an image sensor configured to capture an image of an object through the optical system ([0351] imaging device constructed from a CCD or CMOS is disposed at image plane),
wherein the optical system (Figure 19A) includes a first lens unit having positive refractive power (Figure 19A lens group G1, [0346] G1 has positive refractive power), a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (Figure 21A focusing group GF) and configured to move in focusing ([0346]), and a third lens unit having negative refractive power (Figure 19A lens group GR, [0346] lens group GR has negative refractive power) that are arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Figure 19A lens groups G1, GF, and GR are arranged in order),
wherein each distance between adjacent two of the lens units changes in focusing (Table 10 Variable distance data: distance between G1 and GF changes and distance between GF and GR changes),
wherein a lens arranged closest to an image side in the third lens unit, is a cemented lens ([0350] cemented lens composed of lenses L20, L21, and L22 formed by cementing a negative lens A ([0350] L22 is negative) and a positive lens arranged on the object side of the negative lens A (Figure 19A L21 is on object side of L22, [0350] L21 is positive), and
wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequalities:
0.10 < TL3/TL < 0.40 (Table 10 Lens specifications: TL3 calculated to be 60.563 mm, TL calculated to be 244.091 mm, TL3/TL = 0.25),
where TL is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side to a lens surface closest to the image side, TL3 is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the third lens unit to a lens surface closest to the image side in the third lens unit, DM3 is the largest of the thicknesses, on the optical axis, of the lenses in the third lens unit, f3 is a focal length of the third lens unit, and f is a focal length of the optical system at infinity focusing.
Ohtake further teaches DM3/TL3 = 0.149 (Table 10 Lens specifications: DM3 = 9 mm, TL3 calculated to be 60.563 mm, DM3/TL3 = 0.149) and f3/f = -0.178 (Table 10 Focal length data of groups: f3 = -139.187 mm, f = 780 mm) but fails to teach 0.05 < DM3/TL3 < 0.14 and -0.171 < f3/f < -0.10. In this instance, 0.149 and -0.178 are close to the claimed ranges of 0.05 < DM3/TL3 < 0.14 and -0.171 < f3/f < -0.10, respectively. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
As such, the disclosed lens system of Ohtake would have made the claimed system obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing and through routine optimization of the lens system.
Regarding claim 18, Ohtake teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ohtake further teaches in the first lens unit, a lens arranged closest to the object side (Figure 19A L1) and a lens arranged second closest to the object side (Figure 19A L2) each have positive refractive power ([0347] L1 and L2 has positive refractive power), and
Wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequalities:
0.10 < TL3/TL < 0.30 (Table 10 Lens specifications: TL3 calculated to be 60.563 mm, TL calculated to be 244.091 mm, TL3/TL = 0.25),
0.45 < LD/f < 0.60 (Table 10 General specification: LD = 351.452 mm, f = 780 mm, LD/f = 0.451).
Claims 1, 6-7, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0026047 – hereinafter referred to as “Hosoi”) in view of Gross et al. (Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction – hereinafter referred to as “Gross”).
Regarding claim 1, Hosoi teaches an optical system (Figure 1) comprising a first lens unit (Figure 1 lens group GR1) having positive refractive power (Table 4 GR1 has positive power), a second lens unit (Figure 1 lens group GR2) having positive or negative refractive power and configured to move in focusing (Figure 1 GR2 moves during focusing), and a third lens (Figure 1 lens group GR3) unit having negative refractive power (Table 4 GR3 has negative power) that are arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Figure 1 lens groups GR1, GR2, and GR3 are arranged in order from object to image side),
wherein each distance between adjacent two of the lens units changes in focusing ([0008] only GR2 moves during focusing, Table 3 distance between GR1 and GR2 D14 and distance between GR2 and GR3 D17 changes during focusing),and
wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequalities:
0.10 < TL3/TL < 0.40 (Table 1 TL3 calculated to be 120.1 mm, TL calculated to be 384.7 mm, TL3/TL = 0.31),
0.05 < DM3/TL3 < 0.14 (Table 1 DM3 = 12 mm, TL3 calculated to be 120.1 mm, DM3/TL3 = 0.10), and
-0.171 f3/f < -0.10 (Tables 2 and 4 f = 388.01 mm, f3 = -42.589 mm, f3/f = -0.11)
where TL is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side to a lens surface closest to the image side, TL3 is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the third lens unit to a lens surface closest to the image side in the third lens unit, and DM3 is the largest of the thicknesses, on the optical axis, of the lenses in the third lens unit, f3 is a focal length of the third lens unit, and f is a focal length of the optical system at infinity focusing.
Hosoi fails to teach a lens arranged closest to an image side in the third lens unit, is a cemented lens formed by cementing a negative lens A and a positive lens arranged on the object side of the negative lens A. However, Gross teaches splitting a lens element into two lenses which are very close together (i.e. cemented) with the same total refractive power as a zero power operation that does not affect the overall power of the optical system (pg. 378-379). Gross further teaches splitting a lens into two elements with the same total refractive power as part of the routine optimization procedure for improving the performance of an optical system (pg. 378).
Therefore, 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 optical system taught by Hosoi by splitting the lens closest to the image side in the third lens unit into two lenses that are cemented together and have the same total refractive power as taught by Gross such that the cemented lens is composed of a positive and negative lens in order from the object side as part of the routine optimization procedure to improve the performance of the optical system (Gross pg. 378)
Regarding claim 6, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hosoi further teaches the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequality: 1.85 < nd3N < 2.2, where nd3N is a refractive index of a lens relative to a d-line, the lens having the largest refractive index relative to the d-line among negative lenses included in the third lens unit ([0140] lens L38 is negative, Table 1 nd3N = 1.92285).
Regarding claim 7, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hosoi further teaches the third lens unit (GR3) includes a first subunit (Figure 1 L31 and L32), a second subunit (Figure 1 L33 and L34), and a third subunit (Figure 1 L35-L38) that are arranged in order from the object side to the image side (Figure 1 L31-L38 are arranged in order), wherein the first subunit and the third subunit are configured not to move in image blur correction ([0131] L33 and L34 perform image stabilization), and wherein the second subunit is configured to move in a direction containing a component in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis in the image blur correction ([0131] L33 and L34 move perpendicular to optical axis to perform image stabilization).
Regarding claim 9, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Hosoi further teaches the second subunit has negative refractive power (Table 1 focal length of L33 and L34 calculated to be -183.01 mm).
Regarding claim 10, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Hosoi further teaches the third subunit has negative refractive power (Table 1 focal length of L35-L38 calculated to be -2596 mm).
Regarding claim 13, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hosoi further teaches the second lens unit consists of one lens ([0139] GR2 consists of a single cemented lens).
Regarding claim 14, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hosoi further teaches among distances on the optical axis between two adjacent lenses in the optical system, a distance between a lens closest to the object side and a lens adjacent thereto is largest (Table 1 distance between L11 and L12 is the largest at 158.5 mm).
Regarding claim 15, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hosoi further teaches the first lens unit and the third lens unit are configured not to move in focusing (Figure 1 only GR2 moves during focusing).
Regarding claim 16, Hosoi and Gross teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hosoi further teaches an aperture stop is disposed between the first lens unit and the second lens unit (Figure 1, [0138]-[0139] aperture stop ST is between GR1 and GR2)
Regarding claim 17, Hosoi teaches an imaging apparatus (Figure 19) comprising:
an optical system (Figure 19 imaging lens 10, Figure 1); and
an image sensor configured to capture an image of an object through the optical system (Figure 19 imaging device 12, [0115]),
wherein the optical system (Figure 1) includes a first lens unit (Figure 1 lens group GR1) having positive refractive power (Table 4 GR1 has positive power), a second lens unit (Figure 1 lens group GR2) having positive or negative refractive power and configured to move in focusing (Figure 1 GR2 moves during focusing), and a third lens (Figure 1 lens group GR3) unit having negative refractive power (Table 4 GR3 has negative power) that are arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Figure 1 lens groups GR1, GR2, and GR3 are arranged in order from object to image side),
wherein each distance between adjacent two of the lens units changes in focusing ([0008] only GR2 moves during focusing, Table 3 distance between GR1 and GR2 D14 and distance between GR2 and GR3 D17 changes during focusing),and
wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditional inequalities:
0.10 < TL3/TL < 0.40 (Table 1 TL3 calculated to be 120.1 mm, TL calculated to be 384.7 mm, TL3/TL = 0.31),
0.05 < DM3/TL3 < 0.14 (Table 1 DM3 = 12 mm, TL3 calculated to be 120.1 mm, DM3/TL3 = 0.10), and
-0.171 f3/f < -0.10 (Tables 2 and 4 f = 388.01 mm, f3 = -42.589 mm, f3/f = -0.11)
where TL is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side to a lens surface closest to the image side, TL3 is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the third lens unit to a lens surface closest to the image side in the third lens unit, and DM3 is the largest of the thicknesses, on the optical axis, of the lenses in the third lens unit, f3 is a focal length of the third lens unit, and f is a focal length of the optical system at infinity focusing.
Hosoi fails to teach a lens arranged closest to an image side in the third lens unit, is a cemented lens formed by cementing a negative lens A and a positive lens arranged on the object side of the negative lens A. However, Gross teaches splitting a lens element into two lenses which are very close together (i.e. cemented) with the same total refractive power as a zero power operation that does not affect the overall power of the optical system (pg. 378-379). Gross further teaches splitting a lens into two elements with the same total refractive power as part of the routine optimization procedure for improving the performance of an optical system (pg. 378).
Therefore, 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 optical system taught by Hosoi by splitting the lens closest to the image side in the third lens unit into two lenses that are cemented together and have the same total refractive power as taught by Gross such that the cemented lens is composed of a positive and negative lens in order from the object side as part of the routine optimization procedure to improve the performance of the optical system (Gross pg. 378)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miwa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0055530), Sugita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0351060), and Eguchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0100337) all teach optical systems with similar configurations to the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
