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. 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one wire processing mechanism for processing at least one wire” in claim s 1 -18 . “at least one wire handling device for transferring the at least one wire” in claim s 1 -18 . “at least one carrying device” in claims 1-18 “at least one holding device for holding the at least one wire” in claim s 1 -18 . “a t least one acquisition device for acquiring data stored” in claim s 1 -18 . “ at least one guide device ” in claim 3 . “at least one connection device for connecting” in claim 4 . “a locking device for locking” in claim 5. “at least one connection mechanism for connecting” in claim 9. “at least one holding mechanism for holding” in claims 10-14. “at least one locking mechanism for locking and releasing” in claim 11. “at least one tube guide” in claims 12-14 and 16 . “at least one storage device” in claims 15-1 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected as it recites the limitation “can be” in line 9. The limitation “can be” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous whether the feature is a required limitation or merely an optional, non-limiting feature. Also , the limitation “ can ” is interpreted as capability, which is permissible language and not indefinite. For these reasons, “can” is considered both definite and indefinite, rendering the scope unclear. For the same reason s , claims 6, 8, 15, 17 , a nd dependent claims thereof are rejected as well by virtue of their dependencies. Claim 2 is rejected as it recites the limitation “preferably” in line 4. The limitation “preferably” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous whether the feature is a required limitation or merely an optional, non-limiting feature. Also, the limitation “preferably” can be understood to be a form of example and preference which may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. Such a limitation makes it unclear whether or not the claimed narrower range is an additional limitation. For the same reason s , claims 6, 8, 12-14, 16 , a nd dependent claims thereof are rejected as well by virtue of their dependencies. Claim 7 is rejected to as it contains repeats a limitation, creating indefinite language. The dependent claim 7, lines 2-3, repeats the limitation “at least one holding device for holding the at least one wire” which was already recited in independent claim 1, lines 8-9. Because of this repetition, it renders the claim indefinite as it creates confusion with the same limitation in claim 1. Claim 18 is rejected as it recites the limitation “the at least one storage device” in line 2 , specifically, the word “the” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is ambiguous which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the storage device is the same as the one claimed in claim 15 which first introduces a claimed storage device . Claim 18 is , however, dependent on claim 1 which does not introduce a storage device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim s 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Horiki (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160329675 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Horiki discloses a wire processing device (Title: Electric Wire Processing Device and Wiring Module Production Method ) , in particular a wire finishing machine ( terminal insertion device 100 in FIG. 1 , ¶ 39 , “ The terminal insertion device 100 is a device for producing a wiring module 200 ” ) , comprising: at least one wire processing mechanism for processing at least one wire ( cavity 81 in FIG. 1 , ¶ 39, “The terminal insertion device 100 is a device for producing a wiring module 200 that includes at least one terminal-attached electric wire 9 and at least one connector 8, by inserting a terminal 92 at an end of the terminal-attached electric wire 9 (i.e. an electric wire 9 to which a terminal is attached) into a cavity 81 of the connector 8” ) , at least one wire handling device (terminal insertion mechanisms 2 to 5 in FIG. 1 ¶ 42) for transferring the at least one wire (terminal-attached electric wire 9, ¶ 39) to the at least one wire processing mechanism, wherein the wire processing device has at least one carrying device ( fixing seat 11 in FIG. 1 , ¶ 55, “The fixing seat 11 is a portion for holding the wire arraying member 90 so that it can be removed ) , wherein at least one holding device for holding the at least one wire can be releasably arranged on the at least one carrying device ( wire arraying member 90 in FIG. 1 , ¶ 55 , “The fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure of capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding” ) , wherein the wire processing device comprises at least one acquisition device ( terminal-cavity correspondence data , ¶1 51 , “the terminal-cavity correspondence data is data representing the correspondence relationship between the identification codes of the respective wire retaining portions 902 of the wire arraying member 90 that clamp electric wires 91, and the identification codes of the respective cavities 81 into which the terminals 92 are inserted into ”) for acquiring data stored on the at least one holding device (identification codes of the respective wire retaining portions 902 in FIG. 1, ¶ 151) . Regarding claim 2, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the at least one carrying device is arranged on the wire processing device movable relative to the wire handling device, preferably displaceable translationally back and forth along a movement direction (¶60, “The linear actuator 12 moves the fixing seat 11 in the second direction, that is, in the Y-axis direction. By moving the fixing seat 11 in the second direction, the linear actuator 12 selectively positions the wire retaining portions 902 of the wire arraying member 90 at a predetermined start position P0”) . Regarding claim 3, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the wire processing device comprises at least one guide device (linear actuator 12 in FIG. 1, ¶ 55) , wherein the at least one carrying device is mounted on the at least one guide device movable translationally along the at least one guide device (linear actuator 12 in FIG. 1, ¶ 60 “The linear actuator 12 moves the fixing seat 11 in the second direction ”). Regarding claim 4, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the at least one carrying device has at least one connection device (engagement structure, ¶ 55, “a well-known locking mechanism capable of holding a counter part member with an engagement structure and releasing the holding may be employed as the wire arraying member locking mechanism 111”) for connecting the at least one carrying device to the at least one holding device (fixing seat 11 in FIG. 1, ¶ 55 , “The fixing seat 11 is a portion for holding the wire arraying member 90” , fixing seat 11 ). Regarding claim 5, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein wire processing device comprises a locking device for locking the at least one holding device on the at least one carrying device and for releasing the at least one holding device from the at least one carrying device (wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 in FIG. 1, ¶55, “The fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure of capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”) . Regarding claim 7, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the wire processing device comprises at least one holding device for holding the at least one wire (wire arraying member 90 in FIG. 1, ¶ 50) , wherein the at least one holding device is releasably arranged on the at least one carrying device ( ¶ 55, “wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure of capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”) . Regarding claim 8 , Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the at least one holding device comprises an encoder , wherein preferably data can be and/or are stored in the encoder ( the encoder is a non-functional descriptive material and bears no patentable weight because the specification describes the encoder as a label storing (i.e., printed with) an identification code (Spec. p. 4); MPEP 2111.05(I)(B). R egardless, Horiki discloses an identification codes of the respective wire retaining portions 902 in FIG. 1, ¶ 1 51 ) . Regarding claim 9, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the at least one holding device has at least one connection mechanism for connecting the at least one holding device to the carrying device (fixing seat 11 & locking mechanism 111 in FIG. 1, ¶ 55, “the fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure of capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”, the combination of the fixing seat 11 and locking mechanism 111 serves as the connection mechanism ) . Regarding claim 1 0 , Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein the at least one holding device comprises at least one holding mechanism for holding the at least one wire (wire retaining portions 902, ¶50, “each wire retaining portion 902 includes a pair of members that clamp and retain, with their elastic force, a portion of the electric wire 91”) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 10 , as detailed above , wherein the at least one holding mechanism comprises at least one locking mechanism for locking and releasing the at least one wire (wire retaining portions 902, ¶ 50, “each wire retaining portion 902 includes a pair of members that clamp and retain, with their elastic force, a portion of the electric wire 91”, the wire retaining portion 902 serves as both the holding mechanism for holding the wire as well as the locking mechanism is it uses elastic force to be held in place) . 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiki , and further in view of Chikyu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20080113555 A 1 ) . Regarding claim 6, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 1 , as detailed above, wherein the holding device can be arranged on the at least one carrying device ( ¶ 55, “wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure of capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”). However, Horiki fails to disclose the device wherein at least two holding devices, preferably one behind another along a longitudinal extent . Chikyu discloses a device (Title: Manufacturing Apparatus for Wiring Harnesses and a Manufacturing Method for Wiring Harnesses) wherein at least two holding devices are arranged along a longitudinal extent (FIG. 1, ¶ 35, “ a conveyer belt 1 is formed by connecting a plurality of oblong plate-shape base trays 3 so as to be flexible, on which each two holders 2 are arranged and fixed at the each base tray 3 ” , the base trays 3 are lined up in the longitudinal direction, perpendicular to the inserting direction of the wires ) . Horiki teaches a wire processing device that uses a singular holding device to hold the wires in place and to be grabbed by the wire handling device. Chikyu teaches another wire processing device that instead uses a chain, made up of multiple oblong plate-shape base trays 3 that serve as the holding device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the multiple holding devices disclosed by Chikyu to the device of Horiki to apply a chain-like conveyor belt type motion apparatus for moving the at least two holders along a longitudinal direction. Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiki , and further in view of Scharf (U.S. Patent 3693231 A) . Regarding claim 12, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 10, as detailed above. However, Horiki fails to disclose an at least one tube guide is arranged between the at least one holding mechanism and at least one wire store, wherein the at least one holding mechanism is preferably connected to the at least one tube guide. Scharf discloses a wire processing device (Title: Double End Terminal Attachment Device), wherein at least one tube guide (guide tube 102 in FIG. 4, col. 7, ll. 67) is arranged between the at least one holding mechanism and at least one wire store (feed wheel 12 in FIG. 1, col. 4, ll. 36) , wherein the at least one holding mechanism is preferably connected to the at least one tube guide (col. 7, ll. 65 to col. 8, ll. 4, “ Thereafter, wire to be processed is pushed by means of feeding wheel 12 through the guide tubes with the extended movable guide tube 102 functioning to precisely place the moving wire in a given position upon a conveyor gripper 20 in order that the wire 96 may be eventually grabbed by the conveyor gripper 20 in the desired placement ”) . Horiki discloses how a cable or wire may be moved throughout the wire processing device for final wire processing. In another disclosure, Scharf teaches an apparatus of a wire processing device that incorporates the use of guide tubes that the cable or wire can travel through during wire processing for precise placement and before being grabbed by a conveyor gripper. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that using Scharf’s guide tubes and combining it with Horiki’s wire processing device would result in allowance for various wire placements and elevations around the apparatus (col. 7, ll. 51-59). Regarding claim 13, Scharf further discloses t he wire processing device according to claim 12, as detailed above, wherein the at least one tube guide comprises a, preferably flexible, tube (extended movable guide tube 102 in FIG. 4, col. 7, ll. 66-67) . (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to claim 13 in the same manner). Claim s 14- 1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiki and Scharf , and further in view of Cross (U.S. Patent 4704775 A) . Regarding claim 14, Horiki , in further view of Scharf, disclose t he wire processing device according to claim 13, as detailed above. However, both Horiki and Scharf fail to discloses the tube has a friction-reducing coating, preferably a Teflon coating, on an inner surface of the tube. Cross discloses a wire processing device (Title: Turn Gate for use with a Robotic Wire Harness Assembly System), wherein the tube has a friction-reducing coating, preferably a Teflon coating, on an inner surface of the tube (FIG. col. 4, ll. 10-15, “ The cord has a low coefficient of friction, minimizing hang up of the wire segments when they contact the cord. The finger 590 is also made of material having a low coefficient of friction, such as DELRIN, thereby minimizing abrasion between the finger and passing wire ”; col. 4, ll. 53-56, “the reel has a TEFLON-coated cord 584 wrapped around its periphery and an internal spring (not shown) that tensions the cord”) . The combination of Horiki and Scharf teaches the use of a tube guide that a wire travels through during the final wire processing steps. Cross teaches another wire processing device that integrates the use of a reel that is coated with Teflon and Delrin that is also used to guide the wires down a set path . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that combining Cross’s reel with Scharf’ s disclosed guide tubes would have allowed for guidance of the cord and to provide constant tension in the cord (col. 4, ll. 53-56). Regarding claim 15, Horiki , in further view of Scharf, disclose a wire processing system (Title: Electric Wire Processing Device and Wiring Module Production Method) comprising the wire processing device ( terminal insertion device 100, ¶ 39) according to claim 1, as detailed above, at least one holding device (wire arraying member 90 in FIG. 1, ¶ 50) for holding the at least one wire (terminal-attached electric wire 9, ¶ 39) , wherein the at least one wire of the at least one wire store (Scharf’s feed wheel 12 in FIG. 1, col. 4, ll. 36) is guided to the at least one holding device and held by the at least one holding device, wherein the at least one holding device can be or is releasably arranged (wire arraying member 90 in FIG. 1, ¶55 ) on the at least one carrying device of the wire processing device (fixing seat 11 in FIG. 1, ¶55 ) . However, both Horiki and Scharf fail to disclose an at least one storage device that comprises the at least one wire store for providing the at least one wire. Cross discloses the wire processing device (Title: Turn Gate for use with a Robotic Wire Harness Assembly System) comprising at least one storage device (de-reeling station 57 in FIG. 1A, col. 3, ll. 28) comprising at least one wire store for providing at least one wire (replaceable wire reels or spools 70 in FIG. 1A, col. 3, ll. 29-30) . The combination of Horiki and Scharf teaches the use of a wire store in a wire processing device. Cross teaches another wire processing device that discloses an at least one store device that comprises and hold the at least one wire store for providing the at least one wire . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that combining Cross’s storage device with Horiki’s disclosed device would have yielded predictable results, allowing for easy and quick access to the wires for replacement (col. 3, ll. 29-30) . Regarding claim 16, Scharf further discloses t he wire processing system according to claim 15, as detailed above, wherein the at least one wire is guided between the wire store providing the at least one wire and the at least one holding device at least in sections inside a tube guide comprising a, preferably flexible, tube (extended movable guide tube 102 in FIG. 4, col. 7, ll. 66-67) . (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claims 13 and 15, supra, as it is applicable to claim 16 in the same manner). Regarding claim 17, Horiki further discloses t he wire processing system according to claim 15, as detailed above, wherein the at least one holding device comprises an encoder, wherein data can be and/or are stored in the encoder (storage unit 102 in FIG. 1, ¶ 149, “the storage unit 102 stores, in addition to the control programs, data such as a predetermined path transport data, termina-cavity correspondence data, electric wire position data, and cavity position data”) , wherein the wire processing device comprises at least one acquisition device for acquiring data stored in the encoder (calculation unit 101 in FIG. 1, ¶ 156). (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 15, supra, as it is applicable to claim 17 in the same manner). Regarding claim 18, Cross further discloses the wire processing system according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the at least one storage device is formed mobile (col. 3 , ll. 18-21 , “i n the wire reeling subsystem 40 each wire segment is wound into an individual wire canister 20 that can be easily handled by a robot during the remaining steps of the harness assembly ” , the wire reeling subsystem 40 in FIG. 1A acts as a small and more compact version of the entire wire de-reeling station 57 being able to hold wire canisters that provide the wire to the wire processing system ) . (Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 15, supra, as it is applicable to claim 18 in the same manner). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2956 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Thomas Hong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0993 . 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. /E.D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729