DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 1/12/2026 merit additional citations to prior art of record, which may be considered new grounds for rejection.
The Sazonov reference teaches automatically initiating an energy expenditure accumulator configured to calculate energy expenditure values for a first user wearing a body worn device during a first predetermined duration of time (¶[0068], ¶[0089]); comparing data received from the body worn device to a plurality of signal templates (¶[0160], ¶[0163] feature vector compared to 5 classes); selecting, from the plurality of signal templates and based on a result of the comparing, a best-match signal template (¶[0164] output of the model labels the classes based on best match); and calculating, using the best-match signal template (¶[0158] energy expenditure estimate is on a per posture/activity class basis), energy expenditure values for a first non-predetermined duration of time in response to receiving a first user input at the body worn device, in which the first non-predetermined duration of time is within the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0158] continuous lifestyle energy expenditure monitoring).
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, on pp. 10-14 of the Remarks dated 1/12/2026, Applicant alleges that the instant claims are patent eligible because they comprise an “inventive concept” amounting to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. On p. 12, Applicant elaborates this line of reasoning stating that the claims are directed to claim limitations that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activities (or elements)” in the field of calculating energy expenditures.
On p. 12-14, Applicant goes on to argue that each of the claimed algorithmic steps identified as an abstract idea are not considered well-understood, routine, or conventional features, and limits the remarks to addressing the conventionality of the limitations identified as comprising the abstract idea.
This is not persuasive. The question of whether an element or combination of elements is considered well-understood, routine, or conventional is specifically an inquiry directed to the additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim. This inquiry is specifically not directed towards elements or activities that are identified as comprising the judicial exception, in this case, an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues only that the Hoffman and Sazonov references in combination do not teach the newly added claim amendments.
Applicant made no specific arguments as to why and of Hoffman, Blackadar, or Sazonov does or does not teach newly added amendments. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. See the rejection below for additional clarification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This analysis in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on MPEP § 2106, please see
this section of the MPEP for additional information.
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole is
established:
Claim 1, and similarly in claims 8 and 15, is directed to a device/method/computer readable medium comprising a body worn sensor, processor, display device, and memory, configured to calculate energy expenditure values using the body worn device in two time periods, determining that two users are participating in common athletic activity based on energy expenditure values and locational data, and transmitting a request to one of the users, for joining an athletic activity group including both users, and obtaining data from a second device for determining a user has stopped their activity to pause a timer.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 specify that the body worn device is a sensor.
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 add additional calculation and display steps.
Step 1 of the analysis is the question: “Is the claim to a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter?” and the answer is determined to be yes, as the
claims as a whole are directed to a machine/process.
For Step 2, the preliminary question is whether the eligibility of the claim is self-
evident. The answer is determined to be no, as the claim is not immediately self-evident
as statutory.
Step 2A Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.
While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their
different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an
exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a
mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, the claims in Mayo set forth
laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained
discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice
Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.”
Claim 1, and similarly in claims 8 and 15, recites the following limitations:
automatically initiating an energy expenditure accumulator configured to calculate energy expenditure values for a first user…during a first predetermined duration of time
initiating a session for the first user based on data received from the body worn device
comparing data received from the body worn device to a plurality of signal templates;
selecting, from the plurality of signal templates and based on a result of the comparing, a best-match signal template;
calculating, using the best-match signal template, energy expenditure values for a first non-predetermined duration of time, in which the first non-predetermined duration of time is within the first predetermined duration of time
determining that first user and a second user are participating in a common athletic activity based upon energy expenditure values of the first user and received energy expenditure value of the second user, and locational data indicating that the first user and the second user are within a predetermined distance of one another
determining, based on an analysis of the additional data received from the second device associated with the first user, that the first user has remained stationary
responsive to determining, based on the additional data received from the second device associated with the first user, that the first user has remained stationary, pausing the session of the first user
Each of the claim elements above comprises an explicit claim recitation of an abstract idea. Therefore, rather than merely involve a judicial exception, the claims are directed to the identified judicial exception.
This claim language is identified as an abstract idea, because in MPEP §
2106.04(a)(2) III B. this language is similar to concepts relating to organizing or
analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or are analogous to
human mental work. For example, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d
1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Synopsys, the patentee claimed methods
of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive
latch into a hardware component description of the latch. 839 F.3d at 1140; 120 USPQ2d at 1475. Although the patentee argued that the claims were intended to be
used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, the claims did not include any
limitations requiring computer implementation of the methods and thus do not involve
the use of a computer in any way. 839 F.3d at 1145; 120 USPQ2d at 1478-79. The
court therefore concluded that the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed
steps mentally or with pencil and paper,” and were directed to a mental process of
“translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit.” 839 F.3d at 1149-50; 120 USPQ2d at 1482-83.
In the instant case, the identified abstract idea is similar to Synopsys because the
language reads on an individual performing the claimed activity tracking, initiation, pausing, and social workout initiation mentally. They do not require any computer implementation beyond the recitation of a general purpose computer, or using the computer as a tool to perform the function and therefore are directed to a mental process of finding a workout group or partner based on similar exercise intensity levels and proximity. They rely specifically on automating an individual’s mental process which relies on observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Yes. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
First, the additional elements are identified (Noted, if a claim is not listed here, it is determined to not contain any additional elements beside specifying the abstract idea as already identified, above):
Claim 1: processor, display device, computer readable medium, body worn device, transmitter, second device associated with the first user.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17: sensor
Claim 8: body worn device, transmitter
Claim 11, 18: display
Claim 15: processor, memory, transmitter, body worn device
In the case of the transmission, display device, computer readable medium, memory, and processor these elements appear to describe a general purpose computer, added post-hoc to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality, and do not qualify as a particular machine.
The acquisition of sensor data, and body worn device/second device broadly recited, appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The sensor/body worn device, and second device appears to only nominally tie the abstract idea to a technical field. The second device is further not claimed as sensing or comprising a sensor, thereby only serving to transmit any broadly recited additional data.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
In the case of the transmission, display device, computer readable medium, memory, and processor these elements appear to describe a general purpose computer, added post-hoc to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality, and do not qualify as a particular machine.
The acquisition of sensor data, and body worn device/second device broadly recited, appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The sensor/body worn device, and second device appears to only nominally tie the abstract idea to a technical field. The second device is further not claimed as sensing or comprising a sensor, thereby only serving to transmit any broadly recited additional data.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20/1-15/1-20 of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,216,985, 10,803,305, and 11,581,081. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the earlier patented claims are narrower than the instant claims and therefore anticipate the instant claims and are subject to nonstatutory double patenting.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0283855) hereinafter referred to as Hoffman; in view of Blackadar (U.S. Patent No. 6,298,314) hereinafter referred to as Blackadar; in view of Sazonov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0054359) hereinafter referred to as Sazonov.
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches a device (¶¶[0105-0107] system comprising computing unit, sensors, displays, etc.) comprising:
a processor (¶[0104]),
a display device (¶[0105] display);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that comprises computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor (¶[0105] memory and processor units), perform at least:
automatically initiating activity recognizer (¶[0282]) configured to calculate energy expenditure related values for a first user wearing a body worn device (¶[0111] worn…by the user) during a first predetermined duration of time (¶[0250] for example, calories burned after a predetermined workout duration);
initiating a session for the first user based on data received from the body worn device (¶[0141] receiving user indication of a start of athletic activity);
determining that first user and a second user are participating in a common athletic activity (¶[0337] live challenge matching based on designated activity, such as a 1K run) based upon energy expenditure related values of the first user and received energy expenditure related values of the second user (¶[0286] matching includes previous energy expenditure related data, such as performance and activities, ¶[0338] for example, fitness level), and locational data indicating that the first user and the second user are within a predetermined distance of one another (¶[0338] “within vicinity”, example of same route or path); and
in response, transmitting a request to at least one of the first user and the second user to join an athletic activity group including at least the first and the second users (¶[0338-0339] invitation and acceptance by matched participants.
receiving, from a second device associated with the first user, additional data (¶[0117] and ¶[0142]).
Hoffman does not teach determining, based on an analysis of the additional data received from the second device associated with the first user, that the first user has remained stationary; and responsive to determining, based on the additional data received from the second device associated with the first user, that the first user has remained stationary, pausing the session of the first user.
Hoffman as modified further does not teach comparing data received from the body worn device to a plurality of signal templates, selecting, from the plurality of signal templates and based on a result of the comparing, a best-match signal template, or calculating, using the best-match signal template, energy expenditure for the recognized activities.
Attention is brought to the Blackadar reference, which teaches determining, based on an analysis of additional data received from a second device associated with the first user, that the first user has remained stationary (col. 3, lines 55-59); and responsive to determining, based on the additional data received from the second device associated with the first user, that the first user has remained stationary (col. 11, lines 22-40), pausing the session of the first user (col. 11, lines 58-67, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the activity detection of Hoffman to include automatic pausing when a user remains stationary, as taught by Blackadar, to improve activity logging for a user with automatic recognition of starts and stops (Blackadar, col. 1, lines 36-48).
Hoffman as modified further does not teach comparing data received from the body worn device to a plurality of signal templates, selecting, from the plurality of signal templates and based on a result of the comparing, a best-match signal template, or calculating, using the best-match signal template, energy expenditure for the recognized activities.
Attention is drawn to the Sazonov reference, which teaches automatically initiating an energy expenditure accumulator configured to calculate energy expenditure values for a first user wearing a body worn device during a first predetermined duration of time (¶[0068], ¶[0089]);
comparing data received from the body worn device to a plurality of signal templates (¶[0160], ¶[0163] feature vector compared to 5 classes);
selecting, from the plurality of signal templates and based on a result of the comparing, a best-match signal template (¶[0164] output of the model labels the classes based on best match);
calculating, using the best-match signal template (¶[0158] energy expenditure estimate is on a per posture/activity class basis), energy expenditure values for a first non-predetermined duration of time in response to receiving a first user input at the body worn device, in which the first non-predetermined duration of time is within the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0158] continuous lifestyle energy expenditure monitoring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the activity monitoring system of Hoffman to include energy expenditure calculation, as taught by Sazonov, in order to promote maintaining healthy levels of physical activity and weight management (Sazonov, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Hoffman further teaches sensor data from the body worn device (¶[0100], ¶[0113]).
Sazonov further teaches wherein calculating the energy expenditure values during the first predetermined duration of time comprises using sensor data from the body worn device (Fig. 1A-B, ¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman as modified teaches the device of claim 2.
Hoffman further teaches sensor data from the body worn device (¶[0100], ¶[0113]).
Sazonov further teaches wherein calculating the energy expenditure values during the first non-predetermined duration of time comprises using sensor data from the body worn device (Fig. 1A-B, ¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Hoffman further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium that comprises computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor, perform at least: for at least the first user and the second user, automatically determining a final energy expenditure related value for the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0250] for example, calories burned after a predetermined workout duration);and
displaying the final energy expenditure related value for the first predetermined duration of time on the device and a second device of the second user (¶[0266], ¶[0340-0341] calories burned, and results comparison).
Hoffman does not teach calculating energy expenditure for the recognized activities.
Attention is drawn to the Sazonov reference, which teaches automatically initiating an energy expenditure accumulator configured to calculate energy expenditure values for a first user wearing a body worn device during a first predetermined duration of time (¶[0068], ¶[0089]);
calculating energy expenditure values for a first non-predetermined duration of time in response to receiving a first user input at the body worn device, in which the first non-predetermined duration of time is within the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0158] continuous lifestyle energy expenditure monitoring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the activity monitoring system of Hoffman to include energy expenditure calculation, as taught by Sazonov, in order to promote maintaining healthy levels of physical activity and weight management (Sazonov, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Hoffman further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium that comprises computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor, perform at least: automatically matching at least a portion of movement data collected during the first predetermined duration of time to an activity criteria (¶[0174] recognizing the activity level based on a set of thresholds); and
automatically classifying the movement data, based on the matching (¶[0174] classified as a first, second, or third activity level).
Attention is drawn to the Sazonov reference, which teaches automatically matching at least a portion of movement data collected during the first predetermined duration of time to the best-match signal template (¶[0040] classify motion-based activity based on identification and loading profiles); and
automatically classifying the movement data, based on the matching (¶[0034], ¶[0081-0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the activity monitoring system of Hoffman to include template based activity classification, as taught by Sazonov, in order to promote maintaining healthy levels of physical activity and weight management (Sazonov, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Hoffman as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Hoffman further teaches wherein the first predetermined duration of time is a first time period, the non-transitory computer-readable medium that comprises computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor, perform at least:
after initiation of the calculating the energy expenditure related values for the predetermined first time period (¶[0340]), initiating a time clock for measuring athletic activity during a second time period (¶[0341] secondary challenge running alongside first challenge); and
terminating the second time period for both the first user and the second user (¶[0162] ending the run, ¶[0340-0341]) upon determining that an energy expenditure intensity value for one of the first user or the second user during the second time period has decreased below a threshold level (¶[0238] automatically ending activity).
Hoffman does not teach calculating energy expenditure for the recognized activities.
Attention is drawn to the Sazonov reference, which teaches automatically initiating an energy expenditure accumulator configured to calculate energy expenditure values for a first user wearing a body worn device during a first predetermined duration of time (¶[0068], ¶[0089]);
calculating energy expenditure values for a first non-predetermined duration of time in response to receiving a first user input at the body worn device, in which the first non-predetermined duration of time is within the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0158] continuous lifestyle energy expenditure monitoring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the activity monitoring system of Hoffman to include energy expenditure calculation, as taught by Sazonov, in order to promote maintaining healthy levels of physical activity and weight management (Sazonov, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
Hoffman further teaches wherein the first predetermined duration of time is a first time period, the non-transitory computer-readable medium that comprises computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor, perform at least:
after initiation of the calculating the energy expenditure related values for the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0340]), initiating a second time clock for measuring athletic activity during a second time period (¶[0341] secondary challenge running alongside first challenge); and
pausing the second time period for both the first user and the second user (¶[0206]) upon determining that an energy expenditure intensity value for one of the first user or the second user during the second time period has decreased below a threshold level (¶[0208] answering a call, ¶[0238] time out).
Hoffman does not teach calculating energy expenditure for the recognized activities.
Attention is drawn to the Sazonov reference, which teaches automatically initiating an energy expenditure accumulator configured to calculate energy expenditure values for a first user wearing a body worn device during a first predetermined duration of time (¶[0068], ¶[0089]);
calculating energy expenditure values for a first non-predetermined duration of time in response to receiving a first user input at the body worn device, in which the first non-predetermined duration of time is within the first predetermined duration of time (¶[0158] continuous lifestyle energy expenditure monitoring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the activity monitoring system of Hoffman to include energy expenditure calculation, as taught by Sazonov, in order to promote maintaining healthy levels of physical activity and weight management (Sazonov, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claims 8-14/15-20, the claims are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable media comprising substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-7 and are rejected under substantially the same sections of Hoffman, Blackadar, and Sazonov.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792