DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112
Page 11 of the remarks take the position that the declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 establishes and supports a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to calculate irradiance based on a distance and a speed of a moving LED light source by giving specific examples of how the calculation would be carried out. This has been found unpersuasive to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention because the declaration is opinion evidenced that does not provide any factual evidence that the algorithm was common knowledge. MPEP 716.01(c) (III) recites
“Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) ”
Here, the opinion evidence offers examples of calculations and alleges the calculations are common knowledge for a person of ordinary skill in the art without any factual evidence the calculations offered in the declaration were common knowledge. That is, the underlying factual basis (any evidence that the opinion evidenced is common knowledge) for the opinion is absent from the declaration and therefore does not demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
As recited in MPEP 716.01(c) (III)
“In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion.”
Here, the nature of the matter sought to be established is the algorithm, the strength of the opposing evidence is the absence of the algorithm from the originally filed specification, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case is to receive a patent and there is a notable absence of any underlying factual evidence to support the offered calculations provided in the declaration were commonly or well-known to the art. Taken together the 1.132 therefore fails to persuasively demonstrate possession of the claimed invention under 35 USC 112(a).
The remarks continue in the paragraph bridging pages 11-12 that the declaration establishes a well-known mode of adjusting other variables such as distance and/or speed and the calculation does not require any special skills beyond the ordinary and common knowledge to the art. This has not been found persuasive because the declaration provides no underlying factual evidence to support that the suggested mode and/or calculation was known to the art was in fact well known at the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The paragraph concludes the absence of definitions or details for well established terms or procedures should not be a basis of a rejection under 35 USC 112(a). This recitation from MPEP 2163 can only apply if the alleged algorithm were well-known or well established. However, as discussed above, the declaration fails to point to any factual underlying evidence that such a calculation was well known or well established and instead attempts to alleviate the absence of the specification to achieve a desired result. As discussed in previous office actions, MPEP 2161.01 further recites “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. ”.
With respect to page 12, the remarks suggest the record as a whole, including the declaration establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention at the time of filing this application.
This has not been found persuasive. Initially, the originally filed specification does not demonstrate possession of the claimed invention as discussed in detail in the Non-Final Rejection of 19 May 2025. The remarks have unpersuasively argued possession as discussed in the Non-Final Rejection of 19 May 2025. Moreover, as discussed above, while the declaration does offer an algorithm to perform claimed result, the declaration offers no factual evidence that such an algorithm was well known or common knowledge to the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention and therefore insufficient to remediate the raised issues under 35 USC § 112(a). Therefore, the remarks are non-persuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
With regards to control unit, the remarks point to the evidence of record to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a), as discussed above, this evidence is insufficient to meet the written description requirement. The algorithm performed by the control unit is a desired result, where the specification is silent with how that result is achieved.
Additionally, with respect to control unit, because “control unit” invokes 35 USC § 112(f), it requires both the structure to perform the claimed function.
MPEP 2163.03 (VI) recites:
“A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.” (emphasis added).
Here, the specification does not teach a single way of performing the function of calculating the irradiance and is indefinite for not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 112(b), therefore the functionally claimed control unit is an unbounded functional limitation coving all ways of calculating irradiance, indicating the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention.
The remarks with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are similar to the remarks with respect to the position taken with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and are also unpersuasive as discussed herein above. Moreover, since the control unit
Response to declaration filed under 35 CFR 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 18 November 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 9-19 based upon the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) as set forth in the last Office action because:
The declaration only provides opinion evidence of an algorithm without any factual evidence to demonstrate that calculation of irradiation based on distance and speed was known to the art (see discussion in the response to arguments section above). That is, no references in the form of publications are submitted as evidence to support the “common knowledge” suggestion in the declaration. Specifically, outside of the proposed algorithm, the declaration merely alleges the algorithm is “common knowledge” (point 4, point 12 and point 13 for example), however is absent of any factual evidence to support the opinion that the algorithm was well known to the art. See further discussion above in the response to arguments section. Therefore, the declaration fails to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and the rejection is reiterated herein below.
Moreover, with respect to the substance of the declaration. Paragraph 5 defines a number of variables. Specifically, speed z = .2-.8 m/z, width of irradiation portion V[m] = .2 [m], distance (between center portion of plant and center portion or irradiation portion) D1[m] =.6[m] and irradiation range twice width V.
At paragraph 6 the declaration discusses how the irradiation time Y[s] is calculated is calculated as 2V/z= Y. That is, paragraph 6 suggests that the irradiation time (not irradiance) is calculated not based on distance between the LEDs and the plants and speed. Instead paragraph 6 suggests that the irradiation time is calculated based on the width of the irradiation portion and the speed.
At paragraph 7, the remarks state the irradiance are determined by the delimiting equations. However, the equations included in the independent claims are not equations, but rather inequalities. The inequalities are insufficient to calculate an irradiance, but rather a range of irradiances for a specific irradiation time or conversely a range of irradiation times for a specific irradiance. For example, paragraph 7 suggests an irradiance of 217. For instance, the inequality of claim 9 would result in 644893(217)-1.873 which is ~27.12 s at the upper limit and 5901.9(217)-1.856 which is ~.27 s at the lower limit. In otherwords, the inequalities are insufficient to calculate an actual irradiation time, rather a range of irradiation times for example between .27 s and 27.12s. If the irradiation time were known the upper limit of irradiance would be ~872 W/m2 and the lower limit would be 68.78 W/m2. In otherwords, while the inequalities may generate a range of irradiances or a range of irradiation time. There is no suggestion of how the inequalities may be used to calculate an irradiance to be used to set the intensity of the plurality of LEDs.
Paragraph 8 the suggests the movement speed of the hand cart is set, however this conflicts with the statement that the handcart is propelled by human power (see paragraph 5). If the handcart is propelled by human power than an exact speed cannot be set. Further how the suggested irradiances at speeds of paragraph 8 are determined is unclear as the inequalities of the claims would not provide exact irradiation times, but rather a range of irradiation times.
Paragraph 9 then discusses a conventional pulse width modulation control and adjusting the duty cycle based on the set irradiance. Initially, there is no support as to how the irradiance is calculated as inequalities would not give an exact number but rather a range of irradiation times. Moreover, instant disclosure has no suggestion of a PWM control to adjust the LED illuminance. Lastly paragraph 9 is notably devoid as to how the duty cycle is determined.
Paragraph 10 then suggests the irradiance X from the irradiation portion can be set corresponding to the stage of change in the movement speed z of the hand cart. However, again since the inequalities would suggest a range and not an actual calculated irradiance, it is not clear how any specific irradiance is calculated.
Paragraph 11 further discusses the duty cycle, however the declaration is silent as to any references to support this is common knowledge to the art.
Paragraphs 12-13 addresses the equation Y=41491x-1.848 and similar equations required by other independent claims. While claim 12 does require an actual equation, the declaration provides no evidence that such a calculation as disclosed in paragraph 6-9 were known to the art. Even if evidence could be shown the equations of 6-9, were commonly known to the art, the equations of claims 11-13 and 17-19 cannot be read into independent claims 9-10 and 15-16 because 9-10 and 15-16 do not require any equation, rather inequalities. Moreover, even with the equation there is no disclosed nexus between the intensity and the irradiation time, thus unclear how the intensity is lowered or increased as changes occur in the irradiation time. That is, the specification is silent with respect to PWM control via a duty cycle, therefore setting an intensity based on irradiance is a desired result with no disclosure of how the result is achieved. Lastly, paragraph 9 is silent with respect to how the duty cycle of the PWM is determined
Therefore, the declaration is insufficient to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 15 recites “control unit that calculates… an irradiance …based on an inputted value of distance between the plant and the irradiation portion and a movement speed of the irradiation portion…so as to satisfy all following equations”
Claim 16 requires “control unit that…calculates an irradiance…in response to a fluctuation in an irradiation time….due to a changing movement speed of the irradiation portion, so as to satisfy all flowing equations”
Claim 17 recites “control unit that calculates… an irradiance …and irradiation time…so as to satisfy all following equations”
Claim 18 recites “control unit that calculates… an irradiance …and irradiation time…so as to satisfy all following equations”
Claim 19 recites “control unit that calculates… an irradiance …and irradiation time…so as to satisfy all following equations”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 lacks written description for “calculating an irradiance… based on a distance between the plant and a light source for emitting the near-infrared light based on an inputted value of distance between the plant and the plurality of near-infrared LEDs and a movement speed of the light source… setting an intensity of the plurality of the near-infrared LEDs is raised to have the calculated irradiance X as the movement speed is greater, and the intensity of the plurality of near-infrared LEDs is lowered to have the calculated irradiance X as the movement speed is lower”. Specifically, paragraphs [0063], [0064] and [0070-0073] teach that the irradiance determined based on speed and distance, however fails to provide any algorithm as to how the irradiance is calculated (i.e. algorithm including flow charts, prose, equations, etc…). That is, the irradiance is disclosed to be adjusted to satisfy equations 1-3 without disclosing how the irradiance is adjusted. Moreover, paragraph [0131] of the published application teaches when “the movement speed of the handcart-type device 1 fluctuates, the intensity of the near-infrared light to be emitted is also changed immediately.” That is, the LEDs clearly irradiate the NIR and the control unit adjusts the irradiance. However, the specification fails to provide any details as to how the control unit adjusts the irradiance to satisfy the equations. MPEP 2161.01 recites “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." ”. Here, the specification discloses a controller, however fails to disclose how the controller automatically changes the irradiance to satisfy the equations. That is, the specification is devoid of an algorithm, sequence of steps, formula, prose or a flow chart as to define how the irradiance of the light source is actually adjusted to meet the claimed steps. MPEP 2161.01 further recites “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. ”. Here the specification while teaching a controller fails to describe the algorithm to adjust the at least irradiance and irradiation time.
Moreover, the specification is silent with respect to setting an intensity of the LEDs based on the calculated irradiance X. That is, there is no clear nexus as to how the intensity is set based on a calculated irradiance. The declaration appears to suggest this is done by pulse width modulation control, however there is no suggestion of any pulse width modulation control in the originally filed specification raising the question of possession of the claimed invention. No evidence was submitted with the declaration that factually demonstrates one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized any portion of the specification to suggest pulse width modulation.
Lastly, the inequalities of claim 9 does not result in a calculated irradiance, but rather a range of irradiances or irradiance times. Since inequalities cannot determine an specific time, there is no support for calculating an irradiance based on a range set by inequalities.
Commensurate limitations are required in claims 10-13. Therefore, claims 10-13 fail to meet the written description requirement for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 14 lacks written description by virtue of its dependencies on rejected claims 9-13.
Claims 15-19 require “control unit” invoking 35 USC § 112(f). As discussed above, the control means are only disclosed to be a controller without an algorithm. MPEP 2181 (II) B recites “ When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)”. Here the specification only teaches the controller to satisfy an equation without any disclosure as to how the controller adjusts the irradiance/irradiation time based on distance and time. Moreover, MPEP 2163.03(VI) recites “ claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention” and MPEP 2181 (II)(B) recites “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
That is, since the claim does not require the algorithm to determine at irradiance based on speed and distance, the specification fails to meet the written description requirements under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 14 lacks written description by virtue of its dependencies on claims 9-13.
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any algorithm, steps, flow chart or prose to suggest how the irradiance/irradiation time are calculated. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Lastly, claims 9-13 and 15-19 are vague and indefinite for requiring either “adjusting…to satisfy all following equations” or “adjustment unit configured to adjust…to satisfy all following equations” because it is unclear whether the claims are suggesting the adjustment is adjusting from a state where the irradiance and or irradiation time do not stratify the equations to a state where they do satisfy the equations or if the claims are suggesting that the adjustment is adjusting from a state that satisfies the equations to a different state that satisfies the equations. No unambiguous determination can be made.
Claim 14 is vague and indefinite by virtue of its alternative dependencies on claims 11-13.
Relevant art of interest to the applicant
See discussion of prior art in the Final Rejection of 14 November 2024
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 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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881