DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 5/27/25, Applicant amended claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12-14 and 18; and amended the abstract. Claims 13 and 16-17 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-12, 14-15 and 18 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no disclosure of the backing layer comprising an absorbent material as recited in claim 14 (the only disclosure in the specification is of the pad being absorbent).
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(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; first embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721).
With respect to claim 1, Nassos discloses an adhesive bandage (self-adhering bandage 10; embodiment one in figures 1-3; attached to skin using adhesive 16 thus rendering the bandage an “adhesive” bandage) comprising:
a base strip (carrier strip 12) having an adhesion region (area on left/right ends of the strip 12 that includes adhesive 16 in fig 3) and a pad region (area at center of strip 12 which includes gauze 14 in fig 3);
an adhesive layer positioned adjacent to said adhesion region (adhesive layer 16 provided on left/right ends of strip 12 as shown in figs 1 and 3);
a pad positioned adjacent to said pad region (gauze strip 14 that is configured as a pad and located at the center of strip 12 as shown in figs 1-3);
a protective strip (release paper 18 covers and protects the gauze 14 and adhesive 16 prior to use); and
a temporary tattoo assembly (indicia/image 25) comprising:
an ink layer (para [0020]); and
a release coating (it is inherent that there is a release coating provided to permit separation of release paper 18 from the indicia/image 25);
wherein said temporary tattoo assembly is located within said adhesion region (as shown in fig 3, the indicia/image 25 is provided on the left end of strip 12 in the area where adhesive 16 is provided).
Nassos does not, however, disclose that said base strip has at least one aperture in said adhesion region configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid.
Moore, however, teaches a temporary tattoo decal that comprises a base strip (base paper 1; see figs 1-2) that has at least one aperture (the base paper is described as being porous which inherently means that the paper includes apertures/holes therethrough to render the material porous) configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid (col 2 lines 31-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the base strip of Nassos to be porous and configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid, like the base paper of Moore, to thereby provide at least one aperture in said adhesion region configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid to thereby provide an easy, skin-safe means for transfer of the temporary tattoo image to the user’s skin.
With respect to claim 2, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Nassos also discloses that said temporary tattoo assembly is integrated with said adhesion region (para [0015]).
With respect to claim 3, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Nassos also discloses that said temporary tattoo assembly is removably attached to said adhesion region (release paper 18 is held in place by its adhering contact with the pressure sensitive adhesive 16 – para [0015]).
With respect to claim 6, Nassos (1st embodiment) discloses the bandage as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but Nassos does not disclose that said temporary tattoo assembly further comprises a second adhesive layer in contact with said ink layer. It would have been obvious, however, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the device of Nassos in view of Moore to include an additional adhesive layer so that a second adhesive layer is in contact with said ink layer since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; second embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721).
With respect to claim 1, Nassos discloses an adhesive bandage (self-adhering bandage 30; second embodiment in figures 4-5; attached to skin using adhesive 36 thus rendering the bandage an “adhesive” bandage) comprising:
a base strip (carrier strip 32) having an adhesive region (areas on left/right ends of the strip 32 which include adhesive 36 in fig 4) and a pad region (area at the center of strip 32 which includes gauze 34 in fig 4);
an adhesive layer (adhesive layer 36) positioned adjacent to said adhesive region (as shown in fig 4);
a pad (gauze strip 34 that is configured as a pad as shown in figs 4-5) positioned adjacent to said pad region (as shown in fig 4);
a protective strip (release layer 35 covers adhesive 36 prior to use – para [0017]); and
a temporary tattoo assembly (the release layer 35 is a release/image layer that incorporates an image – para [0017]) comprising:
an ink layer (para [0020]); and
a release coating (it is inherent that there is a release coating provided to permit separation of the release layer from the adhesive 36);
wherein said temporary tattoo assembly is located within said adhesion region (the release layer 35 is a release/image layer that incorporates an image and it covers adhesive 36 prior to use – para [0017] – thus, the release layer 35 having the image layer is interpreted as being located at the area on strip 32 that includes adhesive 36).
Nassos does not, however, disclose that said base strip has at least one aperture in said adhesion region configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid.
Moore, however, teaches a temporary tattoo decal that comprises a base strip (base paper 1; see figs 1-2) that has at least one aperture (the base paper is described as being porous which inherently means that the paper includes apertures/holes therethrough to render the material porous) configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid (col 2 lines 31-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the base strip of Nassos to be porous and configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid, like the base paper of Moore, to thereby provide at least one aperture in said adhesion region configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid to thereby provide an easy, skin-safe means for transfer of the temporary tattoo image to the user’s skin.
With respect to claim 4, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Nassos also discloses that said ink layer is removably attached with said backing layer (at least some of the ink in the image transfers to the user’s skin and thus is interpreted as being removably attached to the release/image layer 35).
With respect to claim 5, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Nassos also discloses that said temporary tattoo assembly further comprises a transfer layer (the release/image layer 35 includes indicia on an extremely thin, flexible, extensible film – para [0021]).
With respect to claim 7, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Nassos also discloses that said temporary tattoo assembly further comprises a backing layer (the release/image layer 35 includes indicia on an extremely thin, flexible, extensible film – para [0021]; the film is interpreted as being a backing layer for the ink image forming the temporary tattoo).
With respect to claim 12, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not explicitly disclose that said backing layer extends to at least one edge of the base strip. Nassos does, however, teach that “bandage construction will depend upon the size of the wound to be treated” (para [0023]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the size of the backing material of dressing 30 of Nassos so that the backing layer extends to at least one edge of carrier strip 32 in order to best accommodate and ensure coverage over a wound site. Furthermore, such a modification would have been obvious since it would have involved a mere change in the size of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 18, Nassos discloses a combination adhesive bandage and temporary tattoo (self-adhering bandage 30; second embodiment in figures 4-5; attached to skin using adhesive 36 thus rendering the bandage an “adhesive” bandage; includes a temporary tattoo provided by image layer 35) comprising:
a base strip (carrier strip 32) having an adhesive region (areas on left/right ends of the strip 32 which include adhesive 36 in fig 4) and a pad region (area at the center of strip 32 which includes gauze 34 in fig 4);
an adhesive layer (adhesive layer 36);
a pad (gauze strip 34 that is configured as a pad as shown in figs 4-5) located within said pad region of said base strip (as shown in fig 4);
a protective strip (release layer 35 covers adhesive 36 prior to use – para [0017]); and
a temporary tattoo assembly (the release layer 35 is a release/image layer that incorporates an image – para [0017]) comprising:
an ink layer (para [0020]);
a release coating (it is inherent that there is a release coating provided to permit separation of the release layer from the adhesive 36); and
a paper backing layer (release paper 38) configured to be commensurate with the surface area of said ink layer (disclosed as being configured to cover the release/image layer 35 and thus is interpreted as being sized the same as the surface area of the image layer in order to cover it; see para [0017]);
wherein said temporary tattoo assembly is located within said adhesion region (the release layer 35 is a release/image layer that incorporates an image and it covers adhesive 36 prior to use – para [0017] – thus, the release layer 35 having the image layer is interpreted as being located at the area on strip 32 that includes adhesive 36).
Nassos does not, however, disclose that said base strip has a cutout through said adhesion region configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid.
Moore, however, teaches a temporary tattoo decal that comprises a base strip (base paper 1; see figs 1-2) that has a cutout (the base paper is described as being porous which inherently means that the paper includes openings/holes or other cutouts therethrough to render the material porous) configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid (col 2 lines 31-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the base strip of Nassos to be porous and configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid, like the base paper of Moore, to thereby provide cutout in said adhesion region configured to place said temporary tattoo assembly in fluid communication with a liquid to thereby provide an easy, skin-safe means for transfer of the temporary tattoo image to the user’s skin.
Nassos in view of Moore does not explicitly disclose that said temporary tattoo is adjacent to said cutout through said adhesion region. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have positioned the temporary tattoo adjacent to the cutout on the device of Nassos in view of Moore since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; first embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and further in view of Wallis et al (US 2019/0321233).
With respect to claim 8, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not explicitly disclose that said adhesive layer bonds in a water- tight manner with skin.
Wallis, however, teaches an adhesive article configured to be attached to a user’s skin (claim 1) to shield an exposed feature such as a wound (para [0002]) wherein the article includes a continuous strip of adhesive configured to be adhered to skin of a person to form a water-tight seal with the skin along an entire perimeter of the membrane (claim 1). Wallis further teaches that forming a seal along a strip that surrounds a vulnerable exposed feature of the person shields the vulnerable exposed feature temporarily against exposure to a detrimental environmental material (para [0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the adhesive layer 16 on the bandage 10 of Nassos such that it bonds in a water- tight manner with skin, like the adhesive on the device of Wallis, in order to shield a wound against exposure to a detrimental environmental material.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; second embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and further in view of Wallis et al (US 2019/0321233).
With respect to claim 8, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not explicitly disclose that said adhesive layer bonds in a water- tight manner with skin.
Wallis, however, teaches an adhesive article configured to be attached to a user’s skin (claim 1) to shield an exposed feature such as a wound (para [0002]) wherein the article includes a continuous strip of adhesive configured to be adhered to skin of a person to form a water-tight seal with the skin along an entire perimeter of the membrane (claim 1). Wallis further teaches that forming a seal along a strip that surrounds a vulnerable exposed feature of the person shields the vulnerable exposed feature temporarily against exposure to a detrimental environmental material (para [0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the adhesive layer 36 on the bandage 30 of Nassos such that it bonds in a water- tight manner with skin, like the adhesive on the device of Wallis, in order to shield a wound against exposure to a detrimental environmental material.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; first embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and Wallis et al (US 2019/0321233) and further in view of Cromett (US 6264786).
With respect to claim 9, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore and Wallis discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 8) but does not disclose a cut-out within said adhesive layer.
Cromett, however, teaches an adhesive laminate that includes a temporary tattoo configured for application to a user’s skin wherein the layers forming the adhesive laminate are cut along/around the outline of the ink image to permit application of the ink image to the skin while minimizing the amount of undecorated laminate that remains around the image during application for a more pleasing appearance in the resulting tattoo (see col 3 line 64 – col 4 line 19; fig 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the bandage of Nassos in view of Moore and Wallis to include a cut-out through both the base strip and adhesive layer of the bandage, like the cut-out outline through the layers of the laminate in Cromett, in order to minimize the amount of undecorated material around the image to be applied to the skin to thereby provide a more pleasing appearance in the resulting tattoo on the skin.
With respect to claim 10, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 9) and Cromett further teaches that said temporary tattoo assembly is positioned substantially adjacent to said cut-out (as shown in figure 5, the cut-out outline is provided around the ink image 14 and thus is positioned adjacent to the tattoo assembly). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have positioned the cut-out in the device of Nassos in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett so that it is substantially adjacent to the temporary tattoo assembly, like the cut-out outline around image 14 in Cromett, in order to minimize the amount of undecorated material around the image to be applied to the skin to thereby provide a more pleasing appearance in the resulting tattoo on the skin.
With respect to claim 11, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 9) and Cromett further teaches a cut-out through said base strip that extends to an edge of said base strip (as shown in figure 5, the cut-out outline is provided around the image 14 and extends from there to the outer perimeter edge of the laminate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the cut-out on the device of Nassos in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett so that it is provided through said base strip and extends to an edge of said base strip, like the cut-out outline in figure 5 of Cromett is provided through the laminate and extends to the outer perimeter edge thereof, in order to assist with removal of the ink image from the structure for application to the skin.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; second embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and Wallis et al (US 2019/0321233) and further in view of Cromett (US 6264786).
With respect to claim 9, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore and Wallis discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 8) but does not disclose a cut-out within said adhesive layer.
Cromett, however, teaches an adhesive laminate that includes a temporary tattoo configured for application to a user’s skin wherein the layers forming the adhesive laminate are cut along/around the outline of the ink image to permit application of the ink image to the skin while minimizing the amount of undecorated laminate that remains around the image during application for a more pleasing appearance in the resulting tattoo (see col 3 line 64 – col 4 line 19; fig 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the bandage of Nassos in view of Moore and Wallis to include a cut-out through both the base strip and adhesive layer of the bandage, like the cut-out outline through the layers of the laminate in Cromett, in order to minimize the amount of undecorated material around the image to be applied to the skin to thereby provide a more pleasing appearance in the resulting tattoo on the skin.
With respect to claim 10, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 9) and Cromett further teaches that said temporary tattoo assembly is positioned substantially adjacent to said cut-out (as shown in figure 5, the cut-out outline is provided around the ink image 14 and thus is positioned adjacent to the tattoo assembly). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have positioned the cut-out in the device of Nassos in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett so that it is substantially adjacent to the temporary tattoo assembly, like the cut-out outline around image 14 in Cromett, in order to minimize the amount of undecorated material around the image to be applied to the skin to thereby provide a more pleasing appearance in the resulting tattoo on the skin.
With respect to claim 11, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 9) and Cromett further teaches a cut-out through said base strip that extends to an edge of said base strip (as shown in figure 5, the cut-out outline is provided around the image 14 and extends from there to the outer perimeter edge of the laminate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the cut-out on the device of Nassos in view of Moore and Wallis and further in view of Cromett so that it is provided through said base strip and extends to an edge of said base strip, like the cut-out outline in figure 5 of Cromett is provided through the laminate and extends to the outer perimeter edge thereof, in order to assist with removal of the ink image from the structure for application to the skin.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; second embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and further in view of Vineberg (US 6106852).
With respect to claim 14, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) but does not disclose that said backing layer further comprises an absorbent material.
Vineberg, however, teaches a temporary tattoo which includes a backing layer 22 that contains a material suitable to absorb water to allow the dye to be moistened over a given period of time (col 9 lines 49-54). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the backing layer of the device of Nassos in view of Moore from an absorbent material like the backing 22 of Vineberg in order to allow the ink of the tattoo image to be moistened over time, rather than immediately all at once, to thereby assist with and improve application of the temporary tattoo to the skin.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; first embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and further in view of Goolishian (US 2012/0037291).
With respect to claim 15, Nassos (1st embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose the bandage further comprising a cue marker.
Goolishian, however, teaches a temporary tattoo which comprises instructions for use printed on the first or second backing sheet surfaces or on the first or second protective sheet surfaces of the device (para [0034]; the instructions are markings on the device that are interpreted as being “cues” to assist with application). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the bandage of Nassos in view of Moore having a cue marker like the instructions on the temporary tattoo device of Goolishian in order to assist a user with application.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassos (US 2015/0065937; second embodiment) in view of Moore et al (US 6074721) and further in view of Goolishian (US 2012/0037291).
With respect to claim 15, Nassos (2nd embodiment) in view of Moore discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose the bandage further comprising a cue marker.
Goolishian, however, teaches a temporary tattoo which comprises instructions for use printed on the first or second backing sheet surfaces or on the first or second protective sheet surfaces of the device (para [0034]; the instructions are markings on the device that are interpreted as being “cues” to assist with application). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the bandage of Nassos in view of Moore having a cue marker like the instructions on the temporary tattoo device of Goolishian in order to assist a user with application.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 5/27/25 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the objections to the specification, Applicant’s amendments to the abstract have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections. However, with respect to the objections to the specification, in the absence of any amendments to the specification or arguments in response to the objection, the objection to the specification has been maintained as noted above.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 112, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Regarding the Double Patenting Rejections, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 5958560; US 2017/0252221; US 2009/0260567.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786