Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 19/289,013

LARGE APERTURE CONTINUOUS ZOOM FOLDED TELE CAMERAS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 02, 2025
Priority
Sep 23, 2021 — provisional 63/247,336 +4 more
Examiner
FISSEL, TRAVIS S
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Corephotonics Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
431 granted / 566 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
584
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
54.4%
+14.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 566 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/26/2026 has been entered. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6-7, 16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-2, 8-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachar et al. (WO2020141466, of record) in view of Kuba et al. (PGPUB 20050128604). Regarding claim 1, Bachar discloses a camera, comprising: a lens including a plurality of active optical surfaces, each active optical surface providing an optical power (103’), and an optical path folding element (OPFE); and an image sensor (118), wherein the active optical surfaces are divided into two lens groups marked G1 and G2 (at least G1, G2 and/or G3), wherein active optical surfaces within a lens group do not move relative to each other (at least pages 13-14), wherein a single active optical surface is located at an object side of the OPFE and has an associated first optical axis (object side surface of the OPFE), wherein all other active optical surfaces are located at an image side of the OPFE and have an associated second optical axis (at least Fig. 2a), wherein the lens has an effective focal length (EFL) <50 mm (see at least page 19 third paragraph), wherein the EFL can be varied continuously between a minimal EFL (EFLMIN) and a maximal EFL (EFLMAX) by independent movement of G1 and G2 along the second optical lens axis, and wherein EFLMAX/EFLMIN is equal to or larger than 1.5 (at least page 19 where 30/15 = 2). Bachar does not disclose wherein the single active optical surface is provided by a lens element separate from the OPFE and located at an object-side of the OPFE. However, Kuba teaches a similar optical system having an OPFE (L42) combined with a plurality of lens groups (G41-G44) wherein a lens (L41) is placed at the object-side surface of the OPFE (Fig. 4A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bachar and Kuba such that a lens was placed on an object-side surface of the OPFE motivated by improving aberration correction ([0069]). Regarding claim 2, modified Bachar discloses wherein EFLMAX/EFLMIN is equal to or smaller than 2 (Page 20). Regarding claim 8, modified Bachar discloses wherein the camera has a f number f/#Min. at EFLMIN and a f number f/#MAX at EFLMAX, and wherein a ratio f/#MAX/f/#M<EFLMX/EFLMIN (Page 19). Regarding claim 9, modified Bachar discloses wherein the camera has a f number f/#M' at EFLMIN is and a f number f/#MAx at EFLMAx, wherein f/#MI< 3 and f/#MAX<5 (Page 19). Regarding claim 10, modified Bachar discloses wherein the lens is a cut lens (Page 4). Regarding claim 11, modified Bachar discloses wherein a distance between the OPFE and a first active optical surface located at the image side of the OPFE is marked dM-L, and wherein dM-L doesnot change for the continuous variation of EFL (Page 13 where L1 does not change position). Regarding claims 12 and 13, Bachar discloses wherein the OPFE is a prism (Page 10 prism or mirror). Regarding claim 14, modified Bachar discloses wherein 10mm<EFLMIN<30mm (Page 19). Regarding claim 15, Bachar discloses wherein the image sensor has a sensor diagonal (SD) and wherein SD is in the range 3mm < SD <10mm (at least Page 13 Table 1). Regarding claim 17, modified Bachar discloses wherein the camera is included in a smartphone (Page 1). Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachar in view of Kuba and further in view of Dhanda et al. (USPAT 11202007, of record). Regarding claim 4, Bachar does not disclose wherein the image sensor is operative to be moved with respect to both G1 and G2 for optical image stabilization (OIS) and for focusing. However, Dhanda teaches an optical imaging system wherein the image sensor is configured to move for focusing and image stabilization (Col. 11 lines 25-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bachar and Dhanda such that the imaging sensor were movable motivated by improving image quality. Regarding claim 5, modified Bachar discloses wherein the movement of the image sensor for OIS is performed in two directions, and wherein the two directions are perpendicular to a normal on the image sensor and perpendicular to each other (Col. 11 lines 25-43 of Dhanda). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/26/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM. 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 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. /TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2025
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748291
IMAGING SYSTEM LENS ASSEMBLY, IMAGING APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12742914
OPTICAL IMAGING SYSTEM
4y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12742979
MULTI-FOCUSING LENSES HAVING MUTIPLE WAVE PLATE
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12736831
METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ADAPTATION OF A MYOPIA CONTROL OPTICAL LENS
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736714
SANDWICH COLORED HYDROGEL CONTACT LENSES
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 9m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 566 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month