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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Acquisition unit in claims 1-10
Determination unit in claims 1-10
Generation unit in claim 10
The above terms are interpreted as functional units of a processor implemented as programs loaded in memory or circuits implemented by ASIC or FPGA [46].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendel et al. (EP3392679), hereafter referred to as Wendel, in view of Rennó (US11719826), hereafter referred to as Renno.
Regarding claim 1, Wendel teaches:
A sensor unit [#1 of Fig. 1, optical sensor] comprising
A sensor [#1 of Fig. 1: optical sensor] including a light emitting unit [#9 of Fig. 1: emitting transmitter], a light receiving unit [#10 of Fig. 1: receiver], a window [#3 of Fig. 1: housing], a signal processor ["To determine the distance, the duration of the light pulses is measured to the object and back again. This evaluation takes place in an evaluation unit, not shown."], an emitter [#13 of Fig. 1: test transmitters], a reflector [#12 of Fig. 1: reflector], and an optical receiver [#16 of Fig. 1: test detector], the signal processor being configured to measure a distance to an object when light that is emitted from the light emitting unit, passes through the window, and is reflected by the object passes through the window and is received by the light receiving unit [“To determine the distance, the duration of the light pulses is measured to the object and back again. This evaluation takes place in an evaluation unit, not shown.”];
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire at least one of a second received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light emitted from the light emitting unit and reflected by the window is received by the light receiving unit [#30 of Fig. 1: array of light sensors] and a third received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light that is emitted from the emitter, passes through the window, and is reflected by the reflector and light that is emitted from the emitter and reflected by the window are received by the optical receiver [#16 of Fig. 1: test detector],
and a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on a side of the window based on at least one of the second received light amount and the third received light amount [“Particularly advantageously, an output signal is generated from the received signals of the test detector or the test detectors of the first test device, which represents a measure of the permeability of the disk. In the evaluation unit, a fault message is generated if the output signal falls below a threshold value”].
Wendel does not teach:
A first acquisition unit configured to acquire a first received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light reflected by the object is received by the light receiving unit;
A determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on a side of the object or on a side of the window based on the first received light amount and at least one of the second received light amount and the third received light amount.
Renno teaches:
A first acquisition unit configured to acquire a first received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light reflected by the object is received by the light receiving unit [receiver of Fig. 2];
And a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on a side of the object based on the first received light amount [23].
Wendel also teaches that their optical sensor could be used to monitor danger areas in advance of vehicles [“The optical sensors designed in this way are used in particular in the field of safety technology in order to monitor danger areas at stationary installations or in advance of vehicles”], and that the readings from the two test devices (similar to claimed acquisition unit 2) can be logically linked to determine if a sensor is dangerously impaired [“According to an advantageous variant, the results of the first and second test devices are evaluated independently of each other and then logically linked, wherein a shutdown command is generated depending on the logical operation or not”]. Renno also teaches that ice can increase the probability of vehicle accidents, and can be difficult to detect [5], and that ground vehicles can benefit from an ice detection sensor [10-11].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno and logically link the ice detection results with the test device results with a reasonable expectation of success, thus improving vehicle safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether an abnormality occurs on a side of the window or on a side of the object based on the first received light amount and at least one of the second received light amount and the third received light amount.
Regarding claim 2, Wendel also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the second received light amount is not included in a second predetermined range [“The received signals thereby received at the test receiving element 34 are evaluated with a threshold value. By means of this threshold value evaluation, it is determined whether there is any impairment of the pane locally at this area of the pane which is being examined with the light scanner 30”].
Wendel does not teach:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range and the second received light amount is included in a second predetermined range;
and determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in the first predetermined range and the second received light amount is not included in the second predetermined range.
Renno also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range [27-28].
For the reasons stated in claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether the abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window using a logical combination of the threshold results.
Regarding claim 3, Wendel also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the third received light amount is not included in a third predetermined range [“A threshold value evaluation of the received signals of the test detector 16 expediently takes place in the evaluation unit. In this way, it is determined whether the pane is impaired in its light-tightness”].
Wendel does not teach:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range and the third received light amount is included in a third predetermined range;
and determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in the first predetermined range and the third received light amount is not included in the third predetermined range
Renno also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range [27-28].
For the reasons stated in claim 1, to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether the abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window using a logical combination of the threshold results.
Regarding claim 4, Wendel also teaches:
measuring distance to the object in a plurality of directions [“As a result of the rotational movement of the transmitting / receiving unit 6, the light beams 8 are periodically guided in a planar monitoring area which can extend over the full angular range of 360 ° or sections thereof”] ,
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire the second received light amount in the plurality of directions [“As a result of the rotational movement of the plate 5, the light scanner arrangement is guided along the entire circumference of the pane, so that a spatially resolved detection of impairments of the pane takes place for the entire pane surface.”]
and a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the window based on the second received light amount in the plurality of directions [“it is detected with the test unit, at which points of the disc, possibly locally, impaired the permeability of the disc and how great these impairments are. This can be classified, in particular in the evaluation unit, whether these impairments are safety-critical”].
Wendel does not teach:
a first acquisition unit is configured to acquire the first received light amount in the plurality of directions
and a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window based on the first received light amount in the plurality of directions and the second received light amount in the plurality of directions
Renno also teaches:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a first received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light reflected by the object is received by the light receiving unit [receiver of Fig. 2]
And a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on a side of the object based on the first received light amount [23].
For the reasons stated addressing claim 1, to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to acquire the first received light amount in a plurality of directions, and determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window based on the first received light amount in the plurality of directions and the second received light amount in the plurality of directions.
Regarding claim 5, Wendel also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the second received light amount in the one direction is not included in a second predetermined range [“The received signals thereby received at the test receiving element 34 are evaluated with a threshold value. By means of this threshold value evaluation, it is determined whether there is any impairment of the pane locally at this area of the pane which is being examined with the light scanner 30”].
Wendel does not teach:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in one direction among the plurality of directions is not included in a first predetermined range and the second received light amount in the one direction is included in a second predetermined range;
and determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in one direction among the plurality of directions is not included in the first predetermined range and the second received light amount in the one direction is not included in the second predetermined range.
Renno also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range [27-28].
For the reasons stated addressing claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window using a logical combination of the threshold results in one of a plurality of directions.
Regarding claim 6, Wendel also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the second received light amount in at least two directions among the plurality of directions is not included in a second predetermined range [“The heating device or generally the cleaning device can be activated depending on the signals of the first and / or second test device. In the present case, the heating device or generally the cleaning device is activated when the output signal indicates a deterioration of the transparency of the disk by a threshold value evaluation”].
Wendel does not teach:
Determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in at least two directions among the plurality of directions is not included in a first predetermined range and the second received light amount in the at least two directions is included in a second predetermined range;
and determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in at least two directions among the plurality of directions is not included in the first predetermined range and the second received light amount in the at least two directions is not included in the second predetermined range
Renno also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range [27-28].
For the reasons stated addressing claim 1, it would have been to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window using a logical combination of the threshold results in at least two of a plurality of directions.
Regarding claim 7, Wendel also teaches:
a sensor configured to measure a distance to the object in a plurality of directions [“As a result of the rotational movement of the transmitting / receiving unit 6, the light beams 8 are periodically guided in a planar monitoring area which can extend over the full angular range of 360 ° or sections thereof”],
a plurality of the emitters [#13 of Fig. 6: test transmitters], a plurality of the reflectors [#12 of Fig. 5: reflector], and a plurality of the optical receivers are arranged along an outer periphery of the window [#16 of Fig. 6: test detectors],
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire the third received light amount in the plurality of directions [“As a result of the rotational movement of the plate 5, the through-bore 17 is guided in succession to all pairs of test transmitters 13 and test detectors 16, so that test measurements are carried out one after the other with it”],
and a determination unit configured to determine if an abnormality occurs on the side of the window based on the third received light amount in the plurality of directions [“By an amplitude evaluation, in particular threshold value evaluation of the received signals of this test detector 16, it is then determined whether there is an impairment of the transparency of the disc”].
Wendel does not teach:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire the first received light amount in the plurality of directions
and a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window based on the first received light amount in the plurality of directions and the third received light amount in the plurality of directions
Renno also teaches:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a first received light amount [receiver of Fig. 2]
and a determination unit configured to determine whether abnormality occurs on a side of the object based on the first received light amount [23].
For the reasons stated addressing claim 1 to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to acquire the first received light amount in a plurality of directions and determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window based on the first received light amount in the plurality of directions and the third received light amount in the plurality of directions.
Regarding claim 8, Wendel also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window when it is determined a predetermined number of times that the third received light amount in one direction among the plurality of directions is not included in a third predetermined range [A threshold value evaluation of the received signals of the test detector 16 expediently takes place in the evaluation unit].
Wendel does not teach:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in one direction among the plurality of directions is not included in a first predetermined range and the third received light amount in the one direction is included in a third predetermined range;
and determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in one direction among the plurality of directions is not included in the first predetermined range and the third received light amount in the one direction is not included in the third predetermined range
Renno also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range [27-28].
For the reasons stated addressing claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Wendel with the road condition monitoring method of Renno to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window using a logical combination of the threshold results in one of a plurality of directions.
Regarding claim 9, Wendel also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the third received light amount in at least two directions among the plurality of directions is not included in a third predetermined range [“The heating device or generally the cleaning device can be activated depending on the signals of the first and / or second test device. In the present case, the heating device or generally the cleaning device is activated when the output signal indicates a deterioration of the transparency of the disk by a threshold value evaluation”].
Wendel does not teach:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in at least two directions among the plurality of directions is not included in a first predetermined range and the third received light amount in the at least two directions is included in a third predetermined range;
and determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the window in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount in at least two directions among the plurality of directions is not included in the first predetermined range and the third received light amount in the at least two directions is not included in the third predetermined range.
Renno also teaches:
determining that abnormality occurs on the side of the object in a case where it is determined a predetermined number of times that the first received light amount is not included in a first predetermined range [27-28].
For the reasons stated regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether abnormality occurs on the side of the object or the side of the window using a logical combination of the threshold results in at least two of a plurality of directions.
Regarding claim 10, Wendel also teaches:
a generation unit configured to generate information regarding abnormality on the side of the window in a case where the determination unit determines that abnormality occurs on the side of the window [“an output signal is generated from the received signals of the test detector or the test detectors of the first test device, which represents an integral measure of the permeability of the disc, and in that an error message is generated in the evaluation unit, if the output signal falls below a threshold value”].
Wendel does not teach:
a generation unit configured to generate information regarding abnormality on the side of the object in a case where the determination unit determines that abnormality occurs on the side of the object, and generate information regarding abnormality on the side of the window in a case where the determination unit determines that abnormality occurs on the side of the window;
and a display unit configured to display the information regarding abnormality on the side of the object or the information regarding abnormality on the side of the window
Renno also teaches:
generating information regarding abnormality on the side of the object in a case where the determination unit determines that abnormality occurs on the side of the object [19],
and a display unit configured to display the information regarding abnormality on the side of the object or the information regarding abnormality on the side of the window [19].
For the reasons stated regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Wendel with the road condition monitoring method of Renno to generate and display information regarding abnormality based on if abnormality is on the window or the object.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has identical scope to claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons stated above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendel in view of Renno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osiroff et al. (US12019186), hereafter referred to as Osiroff.
Regarding claim 12, Wendel teaches:
a processor [“To determine the distance, the duration of the light pulses is measured to the object and back again. This evaluation takes place in an evaluation unit, not shown.”] of a sensor unit [#1 of Fig. 1: optical sensor] including a light emitting unit [#9 of Fig. 1: emitting transmitter], a light receiving unit [#10 of Fig. 1: receiver], a window [#3 of Fig. 1: housing] an emitter [#13 of Fig. 1: test transmitters], a reflector [#12 of Fig. 1: reflector], and an optical receiver [#16 of Fig. 1: test detector] configured to execute
a measuring step of measuring a distance to an object when light that is emitted from the light emitting unit, passes through the window, and is reflected by the object passes through the window and is received by the light receiving unit [“To determine the distance, the duration of the light pulses is measured to the object and back again. This evaluation takes place in an evaluation unit, not shown.”];
a second acquiring step of acquiring at least one of a second received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light emitted from the light emitting unit and reflected by the window is received by the light receiving unit [#30 of Fig. 1: array of light sensors] and a third received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light that is emitted from the emitter, passes through the window, and is reflected by the reflector and light that is emitted from the emitter and reflected by the window are received by the optical receiver [#16 of Fig. 1: test detector];
and a determining step of determining whether abnormality occurs on a side of the window based on at least one of the second received light amount and the third received light amount [“Particularly advantageously, an output signal is generated from the received signals of the test detector or the test detectors of the first test device, which represents a measure of the permeability of the disk. In the evaluation unit, a fault message is generated if the output signal falls below a threshold value”].
Wendel does not teach:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program
A first acquiring step of acquiring a first received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light reflected by the object is received by the light receiving unit;
A determination step of determining whether abnormality occurs on a side of the object or on a side of the window based on the first received light amount and at least one of the second received light amount and the third received light amount.
Renno teaches:
A first acquiring step of acquiring a first received light amount that is a light amount of light obtained when light reflected by the object is received by the light receiving unit [receiver of Fig. 2];
and a determining step of determining whether abnormality occurs on a side of the object based on the first received light amount [23].
Osiroff teaches:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium [7]
For the reasons stated in claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Wendel to include the ice detection method of Renno to determine whether an abnormality occurs on a side of the window or on a side of the object based on the first received light amount and at least one of the second received light amount and the third received light amount. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art could use the storage medium of Osiroff to control the evaluation unit of Wendel with predictable results. In this combination, each element performs the same function as they do separately: the memory holds data that is read, and the sensor performs the same functions shown in claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Wendel with the ice detection method of Renno and to use the non-transitory read only memory of Osiroff.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645