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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 11/18/2022, in which claims 1-12 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 11/18/2022.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim the claim 5 including the base claim (as outlined below) of U.S. Patent No. 11,545,021.
Although certain limitations of the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of U.S. Patent No. 11,545,021 anticipates the claims of the instant application, since It is clear that all the elements of the application claim limitations are to be found in the patent claim limitations. The difference between the application claim limitations and U.S. Patent No. 11,545,021 claim limitations, lies in the fact that the patent claims limitations include many more elements and are thus much more specific. Thus, the inventions of claim limitations of the patent are in effect a “species” of the “generic” inventions of the application claim limitations. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim limitations are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,545,021 claim limitations, it is not patentably distinct from claim limitations of the patent.
INSTANT APPLICATION
US Patent No. 11,545,021
1. A PanOptic computer-based fabrication system comprising:
a. video management hardware components;
b. video management software components;
c. analytic processing appliances;
and
d. network components, where a resulting fabrication system
supports image capture,
image analytics, image data extraction, extracted image sourced data, image associated data and metadata, sensor subsystem data as well as system communications.
1. An image acquisition system comprising:
a. at least one imager for combining detection and raw image production; b. a controller capable of uncompressed or compressed formats; …supporting live data extractions for human readable images used in live surveillance as well as archival search and event documentation as well as machine vision, computer vision, and process such as content analytics and artificial intelligence…
c. a network incorporating ethernet with cables having at least 100 meters; and
d. a wireless two-way communication means between components a, b, and c,
image acquisition system (i.e. imaging sensor capturing sensors required)… a. at least one imager for combining detection and raw image production;..where a resulting image is obtained having an optimal scene creation for supporting live data extractions for human readable images used in live surveillance as well as archival search and event documentation as well as machine vision, computer vision, and process such as content analytics and artificial intelligence. … a wireless two-way communication means between components a, b, and c,
5. The image acquisition system of claim 1 where the controller adds event classification metadata for upstream applications.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “where the software is JFSG software to support importing building structure and floor plans in JPEG, PNG, PDF, TIFF or AutoCAD DWG drawings.” It is not clear what “JFSG” software refers to, since there is no mention of JFSG in the instant specification.
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 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “where the video management software to support importing building components a, b, and c include recorded data indexed image and video captured from toll collection systems data, access control and alarm system data, POS transaction data, and measurement sensor displays.” Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1. It is not clear in claim 5 to which “a, b, and c” are being referenced, since each claim has different a, b, and c. Furthermore, there has been no previous mention of any “building” or “building components” related to “a, b, and c,” in claim 5 or in the claims from which the claim depends, therefore it is not clear what these refer to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is being broadly interpreted to include refer to any form of importation for or from any form of source.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “where the software is JFSG software to support importing building structure and floor plans in JPEG, PNG, PDF, TIFF or AutoCAD DWG drawings.” It is not clear what “JFSG” software refers to, since there is no mention of JFSG in the instant specification (please see 112(a) rejection above), and it does not appear to be a term of the art. For the purpose of examination the claim is being broadly interpreted to be any form of software.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. 2011/0050947 to Marman et al., (hereinafter Marman).
Regarding claim 1, Marman discloses a PanOptic computer-based fabrication system comprising:
a. video management hardware components (Hardware used in managing video, such a as managing video analysis, other video processing, communications of video data, video storage, video capture, etc., see P25, P44, P23, p46, Marman);
b. video management software components (Software and programming used in managing video, such a as managing video analysis, other video processing, communications of video data, video storage, video capture, etc., see P25, P41, P23, p46, Marman);
c. analytic processing appliances (Analyses performed, thus there are analytic processing appliances, see P25-26, P28-29, Marman); and
d. network components (Network and components embodying the network of devices, see Fig. 1, P21-22, Marman), where a resulting fabrication system supports image capture (Cameras in a system capture video, as is their purpose. a “resulting fabrication system” is being broadly interpreted as any system, since there is no specific recitation of any fabrication or how or results. In other words, no particular patentable weight is being given to the terms, since it amounts to an intended use/field of use limitation, and so long a prior art system meets the claimed limitation and structure it reads on the limitations, see P21-22, Marman), image analytics (Analytics on video images, see P25, P44, P23, p46, Marman), image data extraction (Any generation/processing of video images, processed video images, clipping of video, etc., performed on captured video is being interpreted as image extraction, such as low quality video image generation, compressed video image generation, clips generation, etc., that are obtained from captured video, see P25, P30, 32, Marman), extracted image sourced data (The actual video images (i.e., data) obtained from processing a captured video, such as low quality video images, compressed video, video clips, etc., is being interpreted as extracted image sourced data, see P25, P30, 32, Marman), image associated data and metadata (Any data associated with videos and metadata, such as time stamp data, analysis data, recognition data, detection data, etc. is being interpreted as image associated data and metadata, see P26-30, P39, p45, 50-53, Marman), sensor subsystem data (At least image capturing subsystem data (i.e image sensing), see P21-P23, Marman) as well as system communications (Network is a communications system, thus includes system communications, see P21-23, 26, p44, 49-55, Marman).
Regarding claim 2, Marman discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman further discloses where the video management hardware components comprises: a. cameras connected to a network (Network cameras, see P21, Marman); b. switches (Switches, P21, Marman); c. analytic devices (Analytic processing devices, see P25-26, P28-29, p44, p46, p23, Marman); and d. computers (Computers/processors, see Fig. 1, P44, p55, 25, 23, Marman), wherein a, b, and c are packaged to support competitive market pricing in systems (System provides savings, thus has competitive market pricing, see P37, Marman) used for live renderings, archival storage, snapshot, as well as video clip searches and retrievals (Live, archival, clips snaphots, search, retrieval, see P41, P46, P28, P60, 62, P49, Abs., 49-55, Merman. Note that these system types are considered intended use and are not being given patentable weight, since a type of system limitation does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, which is required in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
Regarding claim 4, Marman discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman further discloses where the video management software components comprises: a. real time, live manned surveillance software to support real time management and loss prevention interventions (Surveillance and security, object removal, etc.,, see P22, 29, P10, P44, 51, P41, p7, Marman. Note that the intended use of using a system for security, loss prevention, investigations, documentary evidence, etc., are considered intended use and are not being given patentable weight, since a type of system limitation does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, which is required in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The prior art by Marman includes video surveillance, storage, search, retrieval, alerts etc., which would be serve and have the capability to serve in the intended uses listed in the instant claim a. b. c.); b. investigation and search archival storage software of site-specific operations, activities and events (archival, search, retrieval, see P41, P46, P28-29, 26, P60, 62, P49, Abs., 49-55, p9, Merman); and c. objective documentary evidence archival storage software for civil and criminal legal cases (archival access and events that provide evidence of events, see P41, P46, P28, 26, P60, 62, P49, Abs., 49-55, p9, Merman).
Regarding claim 5, Marman discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
5. The fabrication system of claim 4 where the video management software to support importing building components a, b, and c include recorded data indexed image and video captured from toll collection systems data, access control and alarm system data, POS transaction data, and measurement sensor displays (Timestamp video images (i.e. recorded index data) and video captured, for alarms and events, see P45, p53, 38-39, 49-53, 29, Marman. Note that the intended use/field of use of where locations and systems, etc., are considered intended use and are not being given patentable weight, since a type of system limitation does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, which is required in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The prior art by Marman includes video recorded vdeo data index and video captures, which would be used and have the capability to serve in the intended uses listed in the instant claim).
Regarding claim 8, Marman discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman further discloses where the analytic processing appliances perform processing selected from a group consisting of facial signatures, body signatures, object signatures, age signatures, sex signatures, and ethnicity signatures (Recognition of features (i.e. signatures) including humans faces, see p29, Marman).
Regarding claim 10, Marman discloses all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman further discloses where the analytic processing appliances is a counter for sensing the presence of people or vehicles (Recognition of including human people and vehicles, thus sensing by image capture sensor of these, see p29, Marman).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marman, in view of Korean Patent Publication No. KR2011103690A to Myung (hereinafter Myung. English DERWENT summary of KR2011103690A is included and also cited in this office action).
Regarding claim 3, Marman teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman does not explicitly teach where cameras are CCTV cameras packaged with electronic and optical components in specific configurations to limit the range of alternatives for mounting, aiming and focus of reach specific scenes based on location, mounting, lensing, and installation requirements for wiring constraint.
However, Myung from the same or similar field of monitoring with camera devices, teaches where cameras are CCTV cameras packaged with electronic and optical components in specific configurations to limit the range of alternatives for mounting, aiming and focus of reach specific scenes based on location, mounting, lensing, and installation requirements for wiring constraint (A cctv system can be composed of camera optical and electronic components packed in a specific configuration, such as integrated into a light fixture, which would limit the mounting, location, and installation to a light fixture and aimed at focused from a light fixture location, and wiring constrained as required by fixture as designed, see Fig. 2 and Derwent summary, Mayung).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video-based system as described by Marman and incorporating cctv cameras packaged in a specific configuration, as taught by Mayung.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide camera device that can be discreet for an intended purpose and facilitate convenient installation by its configuration (see Derwent summary, Mayung).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marman, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2014/0009473 to Korkishko (hereinafter Korkishko).
Regarding claim 6, Marman teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman does not explicitly teach where a sensor display is a humidity or temperature reader.
However, Korkishko from the same or similar field of monitoring with camera devices, teaches where a sensor display is a humidity or temperature reader (Camera capturing measurement display, where measurements can include temperature, see P40, P71, P65, 97, Korkishko).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video-based system as described by Marman and incorporating a measurement display with measurement readings, as taught by Korkishko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a means of obtain and displaying readings that can be more conveniently captured by camera or video system for transmitting to a remote location that can monitor a desired situation (see P8-9, P40, 71, Korishko).
Regarding claim 9, Marman teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman does not explicitly teach where an analytic processing appliances is an alphanumeric character reader or an encoded data reader.
However, Korkishko from the same or similar field of monitoring with camera devices, teaches where an analytic processing appliances is an alphanumeric character reader or an encoded data reader (Camera capturing device can read encoded data to extract information, thus there is an analytic processing appliance that is a reader, see P40, P65, Korkishko).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video-based system as described by Marman and incorporating a reader, as taught by Korkishko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently decipher information that can be more compactly encoded as a markings so as to save on space and provide redundancy of information as in the case of certain known encoding indicia (see p40, p65, Korishko).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marman, in view of “JVSG: CCTV Design Software” accessed at: https://web.archive.org/web/20180131075812/https://www.jvsg.com/cctv-design-software/ captured on 01/31/2018, 4 pg. print out (hereinafter JVSG).
Regarding claim 7, Marman teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman does not explicitly teach where a software is JFSG software to support importing building structure and floor plans in JPEG, PNG, PDF, TIFF or AutoCAD DWG drawings.
However, JVSG from the same or similar field of cameras, teaches where a software is JFSG software to support importing building structure and floor plans in JPEG, PNG, PDF, TIFF or AutoCAD DWG drawings (A software program with an import feature of site/floor plan in formats including jpeg, pdf, dwg, etc., see pgs. 3-4 feature matrix, JVSG).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video-based system as described by Marman and incorporating importation of floor plans in specified formats, as taught by JVSG.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better design surveillance such as field of view by using and referring to a floor plan of interest serviced by a camera zone by importing floor plans in commonly known formats (see Pg. 2, Pg. 4, JVSG).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marman, in view of US Patent Publication No. 2017/0363262 to Chien, (hereinafter Chien).
Regarding claim 11, Marman teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman further teaches where network components include live streaming means and archival storage means having wiring configurations to support live camera displays (Streaming, live, and archival with multiple displays, see P46, 49, 55, P35, Fig. 1, 39, 28, 41, Marman ).
Marman does not explicitly teach support more than two streams per camera with multi-camera arrays.
However, Chien from the same or similar field of installed devices including cameras, teaches support more than two streams per camera with multi-camera arrays (Device with multiple cameras (i.e. multi-camera arrays) providing multiple images (i.e. streams), see P37, Chien).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video-based system as described by Marman and incorporating more than two streams per camera with multi-camera arrays, as taught by Chien.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better and more conveniently allow monitoring of multiple areas by devices with multiple cameras at locations (see P37, Chien).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marman, in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. WO2013083656A2 to Franco et al., (hereinafter Franco. English translation of WO2013083656A2 is included and cited in this office action).
Regarding claim 12, Marman teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Marman does not explicitly teach further having wiring design documentation, installation instructions.
However, Franco from the same or similar field of installed devices including cameras, teaches further having wiring design documentation, installation instructions (Installation instructions and wiring diagram documentation can be provided for components, see Pg. 3 2nd Para. Of Summary of invention, Pg. 3 3rd para., Pg. 10 3rd para., Franco).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video-based system as described by Marman and incorporating installation instructions and wiring documentation, as taught by Franco.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better guide a user on how to install a component and depict how wiring is connected (see Pg. 3, Franco).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thielman et al., US Patent Publication No. 2009/0058987 teaches cameras embedded in fixed furniture, walls, fixtures, etc.,
Ha, US Patent Publication No. 2004/0130623 teaches an point of sale system (pos) with buil-in digital video recorder and cameras,
Lundberg et al., US Patent Publication No. 2010/0007750 teaches a networked video camera with electronics and compression and switches used in the network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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 E Fennema can be reached on (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117