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 . The objections and rejections from the Office Action of 4/3/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical and/or mental activity algorithm for evaluating sensed data to determine a person’s athletic/exercise performance.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is nothing recited except for the abstract idea itself. No particular measurements are taken as part of the method from any particular sensor(s). No feedback is provided that could allow a person to improve their athletic/exercise performance, so no improvement to the athletic/exercise performance could be realized through performing the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is nothing recited except for the abstract idea itself. No particular measurements are taken as part of the method from any particular sensor(s). No computer is recited as performing the method. The recited “guide screen” that appears on a “display” only describes the nature of the data subject to the analysis, which is merely a further description of the nature of the abstract idea itself.
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, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaine Killen et al. (US 20210394020 A1)[hereinafter “Killen”], French et al. (US 6430997 B1)[hereinafter “French”], and Chang et al. (US 20180133551 A1)[hereinafter “Chang”].
Regarding Claim 1, Killen discloses setting local axes, based on sensed data from a body sensor and an arm sensor (e.g., calibrating a sensor device to identifying a three-dimensional frame of reference, the sensor device secured to a body part of a person, wherein the output is based on the movement of the sensor device [0015]; a wearable device may be secured to or about a body part, such as an arm, hand, leg, foot, torso, head and/or neck. Where multiple wearable devices are used, each wearable device may be worn or secured on a different body part or location [0016], see also Fig. 1),
deriving workout parameter data, based on a second designated axis value for detecting a number of motions or whether a workout posture is maintained (e.g., Module 102 receives raw three-dimensional motion data (i.e., a second designated axis value) from a wearable device. The raw data may include motion tracking data, accelerometer data in three dimensions or planes, pose angles (i.e., workout posture), the data collected by the wearable device and provided to the raw fitness tracker data module 102 includes acceleration in three dimensions, magnetometer data and pose angles (gyroscope data) [0052]; The workout statistics can include, without limitation, a repetition count (i.e., number of motions), a set count, a timer for an exercise set, consistency in repetition timing (i.e. whether a workout posture is maintained), and motion or range of motion for each set [0088]),
detecting an end of a workout, based on a third designated axis value for determining whether the corresponding workout has ended (e.g., A motion may be defined as starting with the first data point with “in motion state”, have a determined adequate motion span or magnitude (i.e., third designated axis value) and have an ending with an “is still” determination (e.g., detecting the end of a workout). Each data point may include acceleration data, pose angle data, the device state (i.e., “is still”, “in motion”) and the output of the counters [0077], examiner notes that if the acceleration in 3 dimensions is zero, i.e., there is an “is still” determination, that the end of the work out determination necessarily depends on the 3rd axis).
However, Killen does not explicitly disclose determining whether a workout readiness posture is assumed, based on a first designated axis value for detecting workout readiness posture.
French discloses a workout readiness posture detection step of determining whether a workout readiness posture is taken, based on a first designated axis value for workout readiness posture detection (e.g., A protocol called "Dynamic Posture" represents the athletic stance maintained during sport specific activity that maximizes a player's readiness (i.e., workout readiness posture) for a specific task [Col. 18, Lines 8-10]; dynamic posture is achieved by having the user initially assume the desired position and then tracking, in essentially real-time, displacements in the Y (vertical) plane (i.e., first designated axis value) during interactive protocols [Col. 18, Lines 13-16]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Killen in view of French for a workout readiness posture detection step of determining whether a workout readiness posture is taken, based on a first designated axis value for workout readiness posture detection as this would give the advantage of indicating a workout is ready to begin and “represents the athletic stance maintained during sport specific activity that maximizes a player's readiness for a specific task”, French, (Col. 18, Lines 8-10).
Killen discloses the IMU includes gyroscopes [Paragraph [0020]], the use of a global reference system [Paragraph [0084] – “For example, the wearable device may include position sensors capable of providing position data with respect to a local origin or reference or with respect to a global reference system.”], and the evaluation of plank workouts [Paragraph [0021]], but also fails to disclose:
wherein, in case of plank workouts, the workout parameter data are data determining whether a user's head and body are maintained in a straight line,
wherein a gyro sensor is selected as the body sensor for the work parameter data,
wherein one of the first to third designated axis values is an angle between an orthogonal projection onto a global y and Z axis plane as a sensed value of a global Z axis acceleration and a global Z axis, and
wherein 1) when the angle is greater than 45° or 2) when the one of the first to third designated axis values is a sensed value of a local Z axis acceleration and when the sensed value is out of the range of -0.4 and 0.8, the workout parameter data determines that the user's head and body are not maintained in a straight line.
However, Chang discloses:
in case of plank workouts, the workout parameter data are data determining whether a user's head and body are maintained in a straight line [See the plank evaluation of user body posture in Fig. 19 and Paragraph [0116]],
a gyro sensor is selected as the body sensor for the work parameter data [Paragraph [0043] – “The inertial measurement unit 112 functions to measure multiple kinematic properties of an activity. An inertial measurement unit 112 can include at least one accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, and/or other suitable inertial sensor. The inertial measurement unit 112 preferably includes a set of sensors aligned for detection of kinematic properties along three perpendicular axes. In one preferred variation, the inertial measurement unit 112 is a 9-axis motion-tracking device that includes a 3-axis gyroscope, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a 3-axis magnetometer.”Paragraph [0067] – “Preferably, the inertial measurement system includes a three-axis accelerometer and gyroscope. The kinematic data is preferably a stream of kinematic data collected over periods of time when a training activity is performed.”], and
one of the first to third designated axis values is an angle between an orthogonal projection onto a global y and Z axis plane [See the orthogonal projection vectors for evaluating plank form in Fig. 19] as a sensed value of a global Z axis acceleration and a global Z axis [Paragraph [0072] – “An individual kinematic data stream preferably corresponds to distinct kinematic measurements along a defined axis. The kinematic measurements are preferably along a set of orthonormal axes (e.g., an x, y, z coordinate plane). … The kinematic measurements can include acceleration, velocity, displacement, force, rotational acceleration, rotational displacement, tilt/angle, and/or any suitable metric corresponding to a kinematic property of an activity. Preferably, a sensing device provides acceleration as detected by an accelerometer and angular velocity as detected by a gyroscope along three orthonormal axes.”Paragraph [0116] – “Pelvic tilt metrics may differ for different types of planks. A straight plank can measure sagittal tilt. A side plank may measure pelvic coronal tilt. Core stability can classify movement of the core in one to three plans (e.g., coronal, sagittal, and transverse). Side planks may additionally include a side classifier such that right and left side versions of a side plank can be detected and individually measured. For example, the stable state orientation can be used in classifying a good plank (e.g., no pelvis bend) and a bad plank (e.g., bottom lifted in the air or sagging to the ground) as shown in FIG. 19. Shaking can be used to measure fatigue.”].
It would have been obvious to take such an approach in order to effectively evaluate the quality of plank exercises.
Regarding the language that 1) when the angle is greater than 45° or 2) when the one of the first to third designated axis values is a sensed value of a local Z axis acceleration and when the sensed value is out of the range of -0.4 and 0.8, the workout parameter data determines that the user's head and body are not maintained in a straight line, Chang discloses evaluating the angle in determining good/bad plank orientation [See the orthogonal projection vectors for evaluating plank form in Fig. 19] and an evaluation of the stability of sensor values [Paragraph [0116] – “Shaking can be used to measure fatigue.”]. The selection of the specific recited angles and sensor values in determining the quality of a plank exercise would have been obvious as a mere design choice when deciding the specifics of how to evaluate plank quality.
Regarding Claim 2, Killen in view of French disclose the fitness tracking method as discussed above in Claim 1.
Killen discloses the first to third designated axis values comprise axis type information and value type information, the axis type information comprising information of local axes or global axes, information of any one of acceleration, angular velocity, and angle, and information of any one of x, y, z, roll, pitch, and yaw axes (e.g., The three principal axes (i.e., first to third designated axis values) may be referred to as pitch (transverse axis or lateral axis), roll (longitudinal axis), and yaw (normal axis) (i.e., axis type information) for the gyroscope. Accordingly, an IMU may include a total of three accelerometers, three gyroscopes, and three magnetometers [0018]),
the value type information comprising information of any one of a sensed value, an average value, a previous sensed value, an angle value, a magnitude value (e.g., the secondary orientation correcting algorithm converts the acceleration vectors (i.e., the acceleration values/magnitudes (i.e., value type information) in the x, y and z directions) [0057]) and an integrated value of any one of the sensed value, the average value, the previous sensed value, the angle value, and the magnitude value (e.g. see paragraph [0040], “Accordingly, the wearable devices 10A-D each transmit various data, such as their heading, angular acceleration, change in velocity, magnetometer data and timestamp data, as each wearable device moves along with the body part to which the wearable device is secured”, and paragraph [0062], “Accordingly, the motion data may include acceleration, velocity, displacement, jerk and a variety of measurements whether or not they have been filtered.” The wearable device measures sensed information as change in velocity, i.e., acceleration, in 3-axes see paragraph [0040] and then transmits an integrated value of the sensed value – velocity is acquired by integrating the sensed acceleration data and position is acquired by twice integrating the sensed acceleration data.)
Regarding Claim 3, Killen in view of French disclose the fitness tracking method as discussed above in Claim 1.
Killen further discloses selecting any one of the body sensor and the arm sensor and selecting the first to third designated axis values (e.g., Each independent measurement from one or more sensors (i.e., any one of the body sensor and the arm sensor,) may be calibrated in this manner. For example, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) may detect linear acceleration using one or more accelerometers, rotational rate using one or more gyroscopes, and/or a direction or heading reference using a magnetometer. If the IMU includes three accelerometers (i.e., one accelerometer for each of three principal coordinate axis), then the output of each accelerometer may be separately calibrated (i.e., selecting the first to third designated axis values) [0020], see also Fig. 1 arm sensor 10A and body sensor 10C; examiner notes multiple sensors).
Regarding Claim 4, Killen in view of French disclose the fitness tracking method as discussed above in Claim 1.
Killen further discloses the local axes comprise x, y, and z axes of the body sensor produced based on looking ahead and behind data and looking up and down data (e.g., A heading may be imposed on or captured by the wearable device (i.e., body sensor) so that all data is normal relative to the user's perspective orientation. This is done by establishing an orientation as normal to the user (i.e., local axes) and storing this orientation as the user’s heading orientation. Once the heading is established, all rotation matrix or algorithm adjustments, which occur as the device rotates, are performed with the established heading orientation as the defined norm. This allows the established orientation to define forward (i.e., looking ahead, y axis), backward (i.e., looking behind, y axis), left (i.e., x axis), and right (i.e., x axis) from the user. The z axis, also referred to as up and down, is unaffected by a heading adjustment as it is not affected by what direction the user is facing [0053]),
which are produced when a guide screen appears on a display unit and on left and right direction data produced by externalizing the looking ahead and behind data and the looking up and down data (e.g., a graphical user interface (i.e., guide screen) may be output on a display screen (i.e., display unit) of the wearable device or a computing device other than the wearable device. The graphical user interface may include one or more visual indicator that is formed using data gathered from one or more sensors of the wearable device. The visual indicator may include a chart or graph of the data, In some examples, the visual indicator may include a model or representation (i.e., left and right direction produced) of the user during an activity based upon the sensor data and analysis, and may include a model or representation of a motion or position (i.e., externalizing looking ahead, behind, up and down data) of the user during the activity [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, Killen in view of French disclose the fitness tracking method as discussed above in Claim 4.
Killen further discloses the local axes further comprise x, y, and z axes of the one or more sensors produced based on left and right data of the one or more sensors and up and down data of the one or more sensors (e.g., Each independent measurement (i.e., x, y, and z axes) from one or more sensors may be calibrated in this manner (i.e., produced based on left, right, up, and down data). For example, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) may detect linear acceleration using one or more accelerometers, rotational rate using one or more gyroscopes, and/or a direction or heading reference using a magnetometer [0020]).
However, Killen does not explicitly disclose the local axes further comprise x, y, and z axes of the arm sensor produced based on left and right data of the back of the hand and up and down data of the back of the hand which are produced when a guide screen appears on the display unit and on forward and backward data of the back of the hand produced by externalizing the left and right data of the back of the hand and the up and down data of the back of the hand.
French discloses the local axes further comprise x, y, and z axes of the arm sensor produced based on left and right data of the back of the hand and up and down data of the back of the hand (e.g., The system 360 may also display a representation indicating part of the virtual being corresponding to the player 362, for example the hands 378 shown on the display 370 in FIG. 18. Such display elements may be used, to indicate position of part of the player's body (e.g., whether the hands are raised) (i.e., based on left, right, up, and down data), or to indicate orientation of the player (i.e., x, y, and z axes) [Col. 32, Lines 43-50]),
axes are produced when a guide screen appears on the display unit and on forward and backward data of the back of the hand produced by externalizing the left and right data of the back of the hand and the up and down data of the back of the hand (e.g., Referring to FIG. 23, a training system 480 is shown that tracks movement of upper extremities (arms) of a player 482. Additionally, the player has an upper beacon or reflector 488 on each of his or her upper extremities 490. The upper beacons 488 may be placed on the upper or lower arms, on the wrists, or on the hands, as desired. A tracking (i.e., forward and backward data) and display system (i.e., guide screen) similar to those described above is used to track and display motion (i.e., externalizing looking ahead, behind, up and down data) of the upper extremities Col. 36, Lines 56-66]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Killen with French for the local axes further comprise x, y, and z axes of the arm sensor produced based on left and right data of the back of the hand and up and down data of the back of the hand which are produced when a guide screen appears on the display unit and on forward and backward data of the back of the hand produced by externalizing the left and right data of the back of the hand and the up and down data of the back of the hand as this data would give the advantage “to track and display motion of the upper extremities and of the whole body. Tracking of movement of upper extremities provides enhanced simulation in activities where movement of the upper extremities is important, such as boxing, tennis, handball, and activities that involve catching or using the hands to move an object”, French, (Col. 36-37, Lines 65-5).
Regarding Claim 6, Killen in view of French disclose the fitness tracking method as discussed above in Claim 1.
Killen further discloses the data determining whether the workout posture is maintained, comprises workout velocity (e.g., Analysis of the data received from the sensors may be used to determine a person's form (i.e., workout posture is maintained) during one or more movement of an activity [0023]; Accordingly, the user may utilize this feedback to adjust the velocity (i.e., comprises workout velocity) with which they perform subsequent repetitions of the barbell squats or a subsequent set of barbell squats (i.e., workout posture). Therefore, the feedback in the chart may instruct the user to increase the velocity for any subsequent barbell squat repetitions [0091]),
information on whether correct postures are maintained (e.g., the computing device 30 may cause the wearable device to take one or more haptic actions, such as vibrating the wearable device 10A on the right wrist to indicate that person is leaning to the right and cause the person to correct their posture accordingly [0040]),
and information on whether the ranges of the motions are appropriate, which are determined according to the second designated axis value (e.g., the same wrist-worn sensors or another wearable sensor on another body part may indicate the range of movement involved in the person's form, which may be too deep (i.e., the range of movement is too far) or insufficiently deep (i.e., the range of movement is not far enough) (i.e., appropriate) compared to a predetermined ideal range or depth (i.e., second designated axis value) of movement [0026]; Module 102 receives raw three-dimensional motion data (i.e., according to the second designated axis value) from a wearable device. The raw data may include motion tracking data, accelerometer data in three dimensions or planes, pose angles, the data collected by the wearable device and provided to the raw fitness tracker data module 102 includes acceleration in three dimensions, magnetometer data and pose angles (gyroscope data) [0052]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killen, French, Chang et al. (US 20180133551 A1)[hereinafter “Chang”], in view of Santiago Ortega Avila et al. (US 20230293941), hereinafter ‘Ortega Avila’, and further in view of Shien-Chi Liang et al. (US 20120209532), hereinafter ‘Liang’.
Regarding Claim 7, Killen in view of French disclose the fitness tracking method as discussed above in Claim 1.
Killen discloses the local y axis acceleration and the average value of the local y axis acceleration, a push-up workout is ready at a point when the local y axis acceleration is between a range and the average value of the local y axis (e.g., Body weight exercises may include pushups [0021]; The predetermined ranges for the jerk and acceleration are determined by a sensitivity that the system intends to operate above. For instance, if the predetermined range of acceleration (i.e., local y axis acceleration) values was set to 0.0 to 0.3 (i.e., range) [0063]; An acceleration deviation corrector submodule 126 may balance the velocities in the data by adjusting the acceleration array values by a fixed amount determined for the specified array of data. The average acceleration (i.e., average value of the local y axis) during a motion may be subtracted from the acceleration value in each data point in the array [0078]).
Additionally, French discloses the local y axis acceleration, determine that a workout is ready at a time point of the local y axis acceleration (e.g., The optimal dynamic posture during sport-specific (i.e., push-up is ready) activities is determined... b) The invention's computer 22 measures in real-time vertical displacements of the athlete's CG (Y-plane excursions) (i.e., local y axis) as he responds to interactive, sport-specific protocols. c) The invention's computer 22 calculates in essentially real-time the athlete's movement velocities and/or accelerations (i.e., local y axis acceleration) during performance of sport-specific protocols [Col. 18, Lines 22-35]).
However, Killen and French does not explicitly disclose the first designated value includes the sensed value for two seconds of the local y axis acceleration and the average value of the local y axis acceleration, it is determined that a push-up workout is ready at a time point when the sensed value for two seconds of the local y axis acceleration is between -1.4 and -0.6 m/s2 and the average value of the local y axis acceleration is between -1.2 and -0.8 m/s2.
Ortega Avila discloses the values include the sensed value for seconds of the local y axis value, determining that a push-up workout is ready at a time point when the sensed value for seconds of the local y axis acceleration is between a specified range (e.g., the electronic device 100 may receive a digital input indicating that the first user is about to perform one or more push-ups and subsequently generate displacement (i.e., local y axis value) from the streaming sensor data representing changes in position of the first user while the first user is performing push-ups [0034]; For example, FIG. 5B (i.e., range, between -1 and .75) could correspond to the depiction of FIG. 5A, (1) a movement down to a push-up position 511 (e.g., ≈1 meter (−z) displacement), (2) a push-up 512 (≈20 centimeters (+z) displacement) [0043]; the electronic device 100 may be programmed to calculate the following performance metrics: repetition count (the number of total repetitions incremented by one every time a repetition is detected), repetition duration (the number of seconds (i.e., sensed value for seconds) that the user takes to perform the repetition), repetition rate (how many repetitions per second the user performs), push-up duration (how long the user takes to do the push-up), push-up depth (how close the user gets to the floor when performing the push-up), and jump (i.e., push) explosivity (the acceleration in the execution of the jump (i.e., push)). As an example, and not by way of limitation, the jump (i.e., push) explosivity can be calculated by locating the push-off section of the jump (i.e., push) (the event inside the jump (i.e., push) section with a positive displacement), of each repetition in the accelerometer (i.e., local y axis acceleration) data stream, and extracting the acceleration [0045]).
Liang discloses the first designated value includes the sensed value of the local y axis acceleration (e.g., the distribution (i.e., sensed value) of the Z-axis (i.e., local y axis) acceleration in the reference database is used to identify that the exercise is push-up [0052]),
the average value of the local y axis acceleration, it is determined that a push-up workout is ready at the average value of the local y axis acceleration is between -1.2 and -0.8 (e.g., If the average value is between -1.1 g and -0.9 g, then the exercise is determined as push-up, wherein g is gravitational acceleration [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Killen and French with Ortega Avila for the first designated value to include the sensed value for two seconds of the local y axis acceleration and the average value of the local y axis acceleration, and to modify Killen, French and Ortega Avila with Liang to determine that a push-up workout is ready at a time point when the sensed value for two seconds of the local y axis acceleration is between -1.4 and -0.6 m/s2 and the average value of the local y axis acceleration is between -1.2 and -0.8 m/s2 as this would give the advantage of “determining whether displacement data corresponding to each identified repetition substantially matches a predetermined movement signature associated with the type of movement in a particular manner”, Ortega Avila, [0044]. The selection of the specific recited value ranges in determining the quality of a push-up exercise would have been obvious as a mere design choice when deciding the specifics of how to evaluate push-up quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
157
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
The new claim limitations of Claim 1 were not disclosed by the prior art of record from the Office Action of 4/3/2025.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
292
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. French is analogous art because French is directed to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention – evaluating a person’s athletic/exercise performance. The combination of the teachings of French with the system of Killen would not change the principle of operation of Killen because the considered combination would use the measurement system of Killen to perform the objective of French.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ju Ho Jung et al. (US 20190224529) – teaches an integrated value of any one of the sensed value, the average value, the previous sensed value, the angle value, and the magnitude value (e.g., That is, the speed and the location of the mass center (obtained by adding an integral constant value) may be acquired by integrating the mass center acceleration (i.e., sensed value) acquired… [0115].
US 20170000386 A1 – METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING AND ANALYZING POSITION, MOTION, AND EQUILIBRIUM OF BODY PARTS
US 20240041355 A1 – MUSCULOSKELETAL STRAIN
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights