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 08/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in this application. Claims 3 and 5 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/20/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to inherency and broadest reasonable interpretation beginning on page 7 of remarks, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s conclusions. The Applicant appears to argue for specific interpretations of terms such as “a selected range of reflectance levels”, however the claims as currently presented provide no additional detail to limit the range from an inherent quality of a selected material. For support of the reflectance limitations on page 8 of Remarks the Applicant cites the specification which merely emphasizes a generically “high reflectance” without providing a binding limitation or definition. While a more exact definition is offered in the same cited portion of the specification as [0048] “has a conductivity of at least a predetermined threshold such as 10000 Siemens/meter (S/m)”, this language is not present in the claims, therefore the Examiner’s interpretations of the claims as presented are reasonable in view of the broad language. Further, the inherency of a “reflection level” is clearly disclosed by the Examiner’s citations showing the prior art material having ‘any reflection’ due to the broad language and interpretation of “a selected range of reflectance levels”. Therefore, the prior art rejection is maintained for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 3 and 5, the amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Prior art rejections of claims 3 and 5 are overcome in consideration of amendments and arguments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 of this title, 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, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20180127135A), hereinafter Lee (‘135).
Regarding claim 1, Lee, as shown below, discloses a panel comprising the following limitations:
a base sheet (See at least Fig. 2D [0041] “The reflector 230 implemented by the unit cell array may include a plurality of the unit cells 231. The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.” Lee (‘135) discloses a substrate acting as a base sheet for reflector unit cells.);
a reflector on a side of the base sheet, the reflector reflects a telecommunication signal that is of a predetermined wavelength and that is incident on the base sheet, wherein a position of the reflector is configured such that the reflected telecommunication signal is reflected in a predetermined direction (See at least Figs 2A-2D, Items 230-232, [0041] “The reflector 230 implemented by the unit cell array may include a plurality of the unit cells 231. The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.” The Examiner notes that this claim element recites intended use elements regarding the position, direction, or placement of the panel. Intended use in the body of a claim does not hold patentable weight, see also MPEP 2111.04. Additionally, the above claim element recites ‘process by product’ elements and appears to claim process steps by the product made. See also MPEP 806.05(F)), wherein a material of the reflector is selected and configured such that the reflected telecommunication signal is reflected at a selected range of reflectance levels (See at least Figs 2A-2D, Items 230-232, [0041] “The reflector 230 implemented by the unit cell array may include a plurality of the unit cells 231. The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.” Lee (‘135) discloses reflecting the telecommunication signal and it is therefore inherent that the material of the reflector is configured to accomplish the limitation. Further, the Examiner notes that ‘a selected range of reflectance levels’ has a broadest reasonable interpretation including ‘any reflection’. While Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose “selected”, all materials have inherent ranges of reflectance levels and it would therefore be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Lee (‘135) would have been motivated to do so to advantageously improve telecommunication connection by removing a ‘shaded’ area. See at least [0008] “the present invention aims to remove a shaded area in which a beam does not reach in a 5G wireless communication system”), and wherein the material of the reflector is further selected and configured such that an attenuation loss in the reflected telecommunication signal is less than a selected threshold (See at least Figs 2A-2D, Items 230-232, Lee discloses in [0008] that the “invention aims to remove a shaded area in which a beam does not reach in a 5G wireless communication system.” See Also [0031]-[0033]. Here, Lee (‘135) is disclosing that the aim (threshold) is a 5G (telecommunication) signal reaching an area only achievable by reflection. Further, a ‘shadow’, ‘shaded region, or ‘shaded area’ of Lee (‘135) is merely an area above an attenuation loss threshold, which is supported by at least [0030] “the beam transmitted by the base station shown in FIG. 1B may increase in loss due to an increase in the amount of reflection of the 5G beam by the glass”, [0031] “As the reception rate of the 5G signal decreases, the interior of the building may be a shaded area for the 5G signal.”. Lee (‘135) discloses that an attenuation loss in the reflected telecommunication signal is less than a threshold, and it is therefore inherent that the material of the reflector is configured to accomplish the limitation. While Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose “selected”, all materials have inherent attenuation properties and it would therefore be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Lee (‘135) would have been motivated to do so to advantageously improve telecommunication connection by removing a ‘shaded’ area. See at least [0008] “the present invention aims to remove a shaded area in which a beam does not reach in a 5G wireless communication system”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) additionally discloses
the reflector is made of an array of metallized patterns that are directly printed on a surface covering (See at least Fig. 2D, [0041] “Each of the unit cells 231 may be formed of a metal.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) additionally discloses
the reflector is a passive reflector that does not require a power source (See at least Figs. 2C-2D, [0041] “The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.” Lee (‘135) discloses a passive reflection system which simply reflects incident signals.).
Regarding claim 7, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) additionally discloses
the reflector is coupled with the base sheet (See at least Figs. 2C-2D, [0039] “Meanwhile, the reflector 230 may be formed in a flat shape.” Lee (‘135) discloses a shape for the unit cells (reflectors) to be affixed to.).
Regarding claim 8, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Lee (‘135) additionally discloses
the reflector is coupled with the base sheet by laminating the reflector on the base sheet (See at least Figs. 2C-2D, [0039] “Meanwhile, the reflector 230 may be formed in a flat shape.” Lee (‘135) discloses a shape for the unit cells (reflectors) to be affixed to.).
Regarding claim 11, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) additionally discloses
the telecommunication signal is a 5G signal (See at least [0041] “The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.”).
Claims 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (‘135), in view of Ahadi (US 20210194143 A1), hereinafter Ahadi.
Regarding claim 2, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) further discloses
wherein the reflector comprises a selected shape and a selected set of dimensions configured to assist with providing the selected range of reflectance levels (See at least Figs. 2c-2d [0039] “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 2C, the reflector 230 may include a plurality of unit cell arrays capable of reflecting beams in different directions” Lee (‘135) discloses necessary conductive properties to teach the claimed limitations it is therefore inherent that the material of the reflector is configured to accomplish the limitation and that the shape and dimensions are proper. While Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose “selected”, all materials have inherent dimensions and ranges of reflectance levels and it would therefore be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Lee (‘135) would have been motivated to do so to advantageously improve telecommunication connection by removing a ‘shaded’ area. See at least [0008] “the present invention aims to remove a shaded area in which a beam does not reach in a 5G wireless communication system”).
Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose the material of the reflector is further configured to provide a conductivity of at least a selected conductivity threshold. However, Ahadi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the material of the reflector is further configured to provide a conductivity of at least a selected conductivity threshold (See at least [0018] “the predetermined metamaterial switch may be configured to be closed by setting each of the first tunable conductivity and the second tunable conductivity larger than a conductivity threshold.” While Ahadi does not explicitly disclose “selected”, all materials have inherent conductivity properties and it would therefore be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Ahadi would have been motivated to do so to advantageously radiation efficiency. (See at least [0004] “metamaterials are utilized for tailoring antenna radiation patterns, that is, to attain highly directive radiation patterns or enhancing a radiation efficiency.”)), and.
Furthermore, 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 panel disclosed by Lee (‘135) with the conductive material system disclosed by Ahadi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance radiation efficiency (See at least [0004] “metamaterials are utilized for tailoring antenna radiation patterns, that is, to attain highly directive radiation patterns or enhancing a radiation efficiency.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee (‘135) and Ahadi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Lee (‘135) further discloses
the reflector comprise a plurality of reflectors (See at least Figs. 2c-2d [0039] “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 2C, the reflector 230 may include a plurality of unit cell arrays capable of reflecting beams in different directions”), wherein the position and number of reflectors are determined based on an environment in which the panel is located, wherein the position is determined based on (See at least [0036] “It is possible to secure a reflective coverage of 240 as the size, shape and angle of the reflector 230.”, [0039] “The dispersion angle of the 5G beam through each unit cell array can be changed by adjusting at least one of the processing type of the metal implementing the plurality of unit cells, the size, and the interval in which the plurality of unit cells are arranged.”):
a location of a telecommunication antenna that provides the telecommunication signal that is incident on the plurality of reflectors (See at least Figs. 10A-10I [0049] “Depending on the location of the reflector 1000 or the characteristics of the installed space (for example, whether the 5G beam is incident on a wide space such as a square, a narrow space such as an alley or a corner) The coverage area needs to be changed.” Lee (‘135) discloses altering the coverage area (shape and number of reflectors) depending on the incident signal (relative location of a telecommunication antenna to computing device).),
a passage in a structure in the environment (See at least Figs. 10A-10I [0049] “Depending on the location of the reflector 1000 or the characteristics of the installed space (for example, whether the 5G beam is incident on a wide space such as a square, a narrow space such as an alley or a corner) The coverage area needs to be changed.”), and
a location of a computing device that receives the telecommunication signal from the plurality of reflectors (See at least Figs. 10A-10I [0049] “Depending on the location of the reflector 1000 or the characteristics of the installed space (for example, whether the 5G beam is incident on a wide space such as a square, a narrow space such as an alley or a corner) The coverage area needs to be changed.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee (‘135) and Ahadi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Lee (‘135) further discloses
the reflector comprise a plurality of reflectors, wherein the position and number of reflectors are determined based on an environment in which the panel is located (See at least [0043] “The unit cell 910 included in the reflector 900 may be formed as a variable element. Specifically, depending on the shape of the unit cell 910, the reflection angle of the reflector 900 may be changed.” Lee (‘135) discloses variable reflectors (910) which may be activated, therefore changing the position and number of reflectors. See also [0045]-[0046]),
wherein the position is determined based on: a location of a telecommunication antenna that provides the telecommunication signal that is incident on the plurality of reflectors, and a predetermined location/area in the environment where the strength of the telecommunication signal is below a predetermined threshold (See at least Figs. 10A-10I [0049] “Depending on the location of the reflector 1000 or the characteristics of the installed space (for example, whether the 5G beam is incident on a wide space such as a square, a narrow space such as an alley or a corner) The coverage area needs to be changed.” Lee (‘135) discloses altering the coverage area (shape and number of reflectors) depending on the availability and therefore strength of the incident signal (relative location of a telecommunication antenna to computing device).)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (‘135), in view of Shrivastava (US 20190219881 A1), hereinafter Shrivastava.
Regarding claim 3, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Lee (‘135) further discloses
the telecommunications signal is of a predetermined frequency (See at least Figs 2A-2D, Items 230-232, [0041] “The reflector 230 implemented by the unit cell array may include a plurality of the unit cells 231. The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.”);
Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose the reflector is covered by a non-reflective dielectric layer having an absorption below 0.01 decibel/meter at the predetermined frequency of the telecommunication signal, the dielectric layer having a thickness less than one-tenth of the wavelength of the telecommunication signal; and a composition and a thickness of the non-reflective dielectric layer are selected and configured to pass the telecommunications signal to the reflector with an absorption loss below a selected threshold. However, Shrivastava, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the reflector is covered by a non-reflective dielectric layer having an absorption below 0.01 decibel/meter at the predetermined frequency of the telecommunication signal, the dielectric layer having a thickness less than one-tenth of the wavelength of the telecommunication signal; and a composition and a thickness of the non-reflective dielectric layer are selected and configured to pass the telecommunications signal to the reflector with an absorption loss below a selected threshold (See at least Fig. 3, [0147] In some cases, the one or more electroconductive layers of a shielding stack are made of an opaque or reflective material […] include at least one anti-reflection layer disposed adjacent to each electroconductive layer (e.g., metal layer) […] anti-reflection layers are a dielectric” Shrivastava discloses a non-reflective dielectric layer which therefore has inherent absorption properties. While Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose the specifically claimed absorption characteristics and material thickness, all materials have inherent attenuation properties and it would therefore be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Shrivastava would have been motivated to do so to advantageously improve device durability. See at least [0046] “Certain aspects pertain to using a metal alloy in a metal layer of a conductor to help reduce the tendency of migration of the metal into the electrochromic stack and potentially improve the durability of the electrochromic device.”).
Furthermore, 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 panel disclosed by Lee (‘135) with the non-reflective layer system disclosed by Shrivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance radiation efficiency (See at least [0046] “Certain aspects pertain to using a metal alloy in a metal layer of a conductor to help reduce the tendency of migration of the metal into the electrochromic stack and potentially improve the durability of the electrochromic device.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (‘135), in view of Gandy (US 20170244470 A1), hereinafter Gandy (‘470), in further view of Shrivastava.
Regarding claim 5, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) further discloses
the telecommunications signal is of a predetermined frequency (See at least Figs 2A-2D, Items 230-232, [0041] “The reflector 230 implemented by the unit cell array may include a plurality of the unit cells 231. The unit cell 231 may include a plurality of unit cells 231 and 232 that can reflect the 5G beam incident in the first direction in different directions.”);
Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose the reflector is made of an array of metallized patterns that is printed on a flexible substrate, which is laminated on a surface covering. However, Gandy (‘470), in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the reflector is made of an array of metallized patterns that is printed on a flexible substrate, which is laminated on a surface covering (See at least Figs. 16, 18, [0096] “FIG. 16 shows 320 an illustrative passive sheet reflector component 14d that includes reflector elements 68d arranged in a two-dimensional matrix 322, such as embedded within a flexible sheet backing 362”, [0099] “An illustrative passive sheet reflector component 14d can be placed on a wall”).
Furthermore, 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 panel disclosed by Lee (‘135) with the flexible substrate system disclosed by Gandy (‘470). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously support reflector elements in proper position and orientations using collapsible frameworks (See at least [0058] “In some embodiments, the passive reflector elements are supported and can be positioned and oriented by a collapsible framework. The framework members can include spring-loaded struts, inflatable struts, flexible poles, hollow poles, inflatable tubes, foldable sheets, or collapsible ropes.”).
The combination of Lee (‘135) and Gandy (‘470) does not explicitly disclose the reflector is covered by a non-reflective dielectric layer having an absorption below 0.01 decibel/meter at the predetermined frequency of the telecommunication signal, the dielectric layer having a thickness less than one-tenth of the wavelength of the telecommunication signal; and a composition and a thickness of the non-reflective dielectric layer are selected and configured to pass the telecommunications signal to the reflector with an absorption loss below a selected threshold. However, Shrivastava, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the flexible substrate comprises a non-reflective dielectric layer having an absorption below 0.01 decibel/meter at the predetermined frequency of the telecommunications signal, the non-reflective dielectric layer having a thickness less than one-tenth of the wavelength of the telecommunication signal; and a composition and a thickness of the nonreflective dielectric layer are selected and configured to pass the telecommunications signal to the reflector with an absorption loss below a selected (See at least Fig. 3, [0147] In some cases, the one or more electroconductive layers of a shielding stack are made of an opaque or reflective material […] include at least one anti-reflection layer disposed adjacent to each electroconductive layer (e.g., metal layer) […] anti-reflection layers are a dielectric” Shrivastava discloses a non-reflective dielectric layer which therefore has inherent absorption properties. While Shrivastava does not explicitly disclose the specifically claimed absorption characteristics and material thickness, all materials have inherent attenuation properties and it would therefore be a simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Shrivastava would have been motivated to do so to advantageously improve device durability. See at least [0046] “Certain aspects pertain to using a metal alloy in a metal layer of a conductor to help reduce the tendency of migration of the metal into the electrochromic stack and potentially improve the durability of the electrochromic device.”).
Furthermore, 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 panel disclosed by Lee (‘135) with the flexible substrate system disclosed by Gandy (‘470) with the non-reflective layer system disclosed by Shrivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance radiation efficiency (See at least [0046] “Certain aspects pertain to using a metal alloy in a metal layer of a conductor to help reduce the tendency of migration of the metal into the electrochromic stack and potentially improve the durability of the electrochromic device.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (‘135), in view of Sigona (US 20070109279 A1), hereinafter Sigona (‘279).
Regarding claim 12, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose a controller coupled with the reflector, and wherein the controller is configured to perform a method comprising: in response to a user touching the reflector with a predetermined object, determining coordinates of a position at which the object touches the reflector, the coordinates are in a frame of reference of the reflector; and outputting the coordinates that are determined. However, Sigona (‘279), in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a controller coupled with the reflector, and wherein the controller is configured to perform a method comprising (See at least Fig. 1 [0003] “The system 100 also comprises a lead 111 coupling a controller 110 to the touchscreen 105”):
in response to a user touching the reflector with a predetermined object (See at least [0034] “user lifts a finger or stylus from the touchscreen 105”), determining coordinates of a position at which the object touches the reflector, the coordinates are in a frame of reference of the reflector; and outputting the coordinates that are determined (See at least Fig. 6 , [0006] “The controller 110 sends signals to the transmitting transducers 125 and 130 through lines 160 and 165, and the transmitting transducers 125 and 130 generate acoustic energy that is launched across the substrate 120 and reflected by the reflector arrays” [0010] “When a release event occurs, the release event is correlated with one of the X coordinates and one of the Y coordinates in the coordinate series to form a first XY coordinate pair corresponding to the first touch event. The first XY coordinate pair corresponding to the first touch event is output.”).
Furthermore, 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 panel disclosed by Lee (‘135) with the touch coordinate system disclosed by Sigona (‘279). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously identify a complex input by an object, such as at multiple points (See at least [0001] This invention relates generally to touch input systems, and more particularly, to touch input systems in which there can be multiple touches overlapping in time, and to methods and apparatus for identifying the locations of multiple touch inputs).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (‘135), in view of Hightower (‘277).
Regarding claim 13, Lee (‘135), as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lee (‘135) does not explicitly disclose the telecommunication signal is incident on a first side of the base sheet, and the reflector is on a second side of the base sheet, the second side being opposite to the first side; and the second side of the base sheet is facing a target area. However, Hightower (‘277), in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the telecommunication signal is incident on a first side of the base sheet, and the reflector is on a second side of the base sheet, the second side being opposite to the first side; and the second side of the base sheet is facing a target area (See at least Fig. 2, Col. 19 Lines 54-59 “An evenly spaced grid of metal wires, grid 70, is bonded to a rear surface 71 of the wall board panel filter 65. The grid 70 provides an electromagnetic reflective surface for an electromagnetic signal so long as the grid spacing is small compared to a wavelength of the electromagnetic signal.” Hightower (‘277) discloses a reflective filter wherein the signals pass through to a target area.).
Furthermore, 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 panel disclosed by Lee (‘135) with the reflector placement system disclosed by Hightower (‘277). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a building material that is aesthetically pleasing (See at least Col. 21 Lines 7-20 “Thus, installing the panel reflector 80 within an office building or residence provides an aesthetically appealing reflective surface for controlling electromagnetic environment within the enclosure.”).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648