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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/20/2026 have been entered and considered.
Claim 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11 ,12, 13 14, 16 and 17 are amended
Claim 5 is cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 4/20/2026 , with respect to indefiniteness of the first and second coupling structure have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 4/20/2026 , with respect to indefiniteness of the use of “and/or” and to clarify the alternatives or lack thereof, by reciting the intended scope explicitly, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 4/20/2026 , with respect to drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The request for drawing submission has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see ““Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment””, filed 4/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 with references Klug (US-20220309759-A1 ) and Schwartze (US-11493758-B2 ) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Klug and Schwartze. Applicant’s amendments including “wherein the first coupling portion is different than the second coupling portion”, “wherein the specified operator action includes the completion of a specified operator gesture involving a movement and including a variation over time of the position of the operator.” and rectification of prior office action’s 112(b) rejection in regards to using “and/or” and its implications on claim scope shifts the viewpoint and understanding of claim 1 in a way that necessitated further consideration and analysis of cited references. Claim 1 now requires that the first coupling portion is different than the second coupling portion, and that the coupling portions must have the capacity to work in reverse in regards to input and output. Claim 1 also requires that the specified operator action includes the completion of a specified operator gesture involving a movement and including a variation over time of the position of the operator.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 rejected by Whinnery (US-10249088-B2) and Popovich (WO-2017060665-A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record as they were presented in previous office action, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 rejected by Whinnery (US-10249088-B2) Popovich (WO-2017060665-A1) and Popovich (US-10249088-B2) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record, as they were presented in previous office action, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument as they were presented in previous office action.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug et al
US 20220309759 Al in view of Schwartze et a I (Schwartze hereinafter US 11493758 B2)
As per claim 1
Klug teaches a control system for a door arrangement (Figure 3) an optical sensor arrangement
(Figure 1 label 32 designated as camera) an optical display arrangement ( Figure 1) and a control arrangement (Figure 1) wherein control arrangement monitoring image data captured by the optical sensor arrangement in a detection routine to ascertain the presence of a specified operator action and, in response to detection of the operator action (Paragraph [0057-0058]" to verify their identity, a user can place their hand 30 on the measuring region 18 of the apparatus 10 ... If the hand 30 of the user is placed on the measuring region 18, it is then possible for an image of the hand vein pattern, for example, to be captured and for the latter to be checked by the identification device 34) triggering an opening process or closing process of a motor-vehicle door of the motor- vehicle door arrangement (Paragraph [0058] "If the hand 30 of the user is placed on the measuring region 18, it is then possible for an image of the hand vein pattern, for example, to be captured and for the latter to be checked by the identification device 34. If the predetermined comparison condition is met, it is possible for example to send a control signal to an unlocking mechanism 40 of the motor vehicle door, which can for example unlock a lock of the vehicle door"), control system has a waveguide with a first coupling portion and a second coupling portion wherein the first coupling portion is different than the second coupling portion (Figure 1 label 24 and 16 respectively) in that the optical sensor arrangement captures the image data on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion. (Figure 1 label 24 ) coupled out of the waveguide by way of the second coupling portion (Figure 1 label 16) and in that the optical display device produces the display on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of the second coupling portion and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion (Figure 1. Paragraph [0011] “the light input coupling apparatus can also be arranged at the output coupling region in such a way that the holographic element with the second diffraction structure can input couple the light at the first wavelength into the carrier medium. The light from the light input coupling apparatus which was input coupled in this way can then be transmitted within the carrier medium to the measuring region, wherein the measuring region has a holographic element with a first diffraction structure which can diffract the light at the first wavelength, which was input coupled into the carrier medium, in such a way that it is output coupled from the carrier medium.” ) and wherein the specified operator action includes the completion of a specified operator gesture involving a movement and including a variation over time of the position of the operator.
(Paragraph [0060] “ one aspect consists of for example an approach of a hand to the measuring region for hand vein recognition being sufficient for the recording. This means that the hand need not be placed on the measuring region 18, as a result of which dirtying of the measuring region or dirtying of the hand can be avoided.” The approach of the hand is registered as the gesture. An approach of the hand is a movement that includes a variation over time. The position of the operator has changed as well; the hands lateral movement now places the operator in a differing coordinate in space.)
Klug does not teach the optical display arrangement producing a display of an operating
element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine.
Schwartze teaches the optical display arrangement producing a display of an
operating element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine. (Figure 7 and
Column 12 lines 1-16 "Due to acquisition of a position of the eyes of the observer 50, for example by
use of the first acquired image, and due to the acquisition of the object 52, for example by use of the
second acquired image, for example, an intersection point 53 ... This intersection point 53 is used for
positioning a display of contents, for example, of a so-called augmented reality ... A virtual image 54 thus results for the observer 50, which appears to be located in an image plane perceptible by the observer outside the pane 12. However, an image can also be displayed on the side of the observer 50. Multiple different image planes may be implemented. )
Accordingly a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to modify Klug's door arrangement control system to additionally have the optical display arrangement produce a display of an operating element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine by incorporating Schwartze's teaching of determining an intersection point based on acquired images (eye position and object acquisition ) and using that intersection point for positioning a display of contents (augmented virtual reality image 54 in selectable image planes). Schwartze provides the foundation for an optical display driven technique for presenting user relevant action dependent content in a controllable image plane that can be integrated into Klug's waveguide based optical system. This is done so that during the operator action detection routine, the system can present an associated operating element content to an appropriate perceived location for the observer. This enables the control system to provide contextual action based visual guidance and feedback in a selectable image plane. This improves usability and clarity of the operator interaction during the detection routine while preserving Klug's existing waveguide coupling architecture for sensing and door unlock control.
As per claim 2
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. Please see claim 1
Klug teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that wherein the first
and/or the second coupling portion has or have at least one holographic optical element. ( Paragraph
[0044] 11 the carrier medium 12 can comprise two glass plates which serve as light guides and which
form the capping layers of the carrier medium. The core of the carrier medium enclosed by the two
glass plates may have a holographic element 14 ... he carrier medium 12 can comprise an output coupling region 16 and a measuring region 18 ... ")
As per claim 3
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. Please see claim 1
Klug teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the control arrangement triggers the detection routine in response to completion of a successful authentication check on the operator (Paragraph [0058] 11 If the hand 30 of the user is placed on the measuring region 18, it is then possible for an image of the hand vein pattern, for example, to be captured and for the latter to be checked by the identification device 34. If the predetermined comparison condition is met, it is possible for example to send a control signal to an unlocking mechanism 40 of the motor vehicle door, which can for example unlock a lock of the vehicle door.")
As per claim 10
Klug teaches A motor-vehicle door arrangement having a motor-vehicle door and a control system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein-the waveguide of the control system is at least partially integrated in a window of the motor-vehicle door (Figure 3, Paragraph [0058]: 11 FIG. 3 illustrates a further exemplary embodiment of the apparatus 10. In this exemplary embodiment, the apparatus 10 can be integrated into a window pane 38 of the motor vehicle.")
As per claim 14
Claim 14 is the method claim of claim 1 and is subsequently rejected under the same grounds. The prior arts' system and modified workflow performs the claimed steps during operation; thus, the method is taught by the same disclosures used for the corresponding system claim.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug et al US 20220309759 Al in view of Schwartze et a I (Schwartze hereinafter US 11493758 B2) in further view of Whinnery et al (Whinnery hereinafter US 10249088 B2)
As per claim 4
Klug and Schwartze teach claim limitations previously rejected in claim 3’s 103 rejection
Please see claim 3’s 103 rejection.
Klug nor Schwartze teach the control system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the control arrangement triggers the authentication check in response to sensing that the motor-vehicle door arrangement is being approached by the operator.
Whinnery teaches the control arrangement triggers the authentication check in response to sensing that the motor vehicle door arrangement is being approached by the operator (Column 13 line 41 ''when the key FOB 152 is within a predetermined range of the vehicle, the passive entry system 126 can authenticate the key FOB 152." and Column 13 line 51 ''when the output device 132 is within a predetermined range of the vehicle 102, the passive entry system 126 can authenticate the output device 152'')
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time this invention was effectively filed to incorporate Whinnery' s concept of triggering an authentication check in response to sensing the approaching operator into the previously modified Klug/Schwartze workflow. A person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that by doing a prescreening authentication check through proximity of the operator’s approach before the actual approach of the hand gesture disclosed by the modified Klug/Schwartze workflow. This allows for preauthorization of the system before the detection routine runs. This reduces latency when the user attempts the action, limits gesture processing to authenticated contexts and reduces unnecessary sensing/display activity when no operator is present and or approaching.
As per claim 6
Klug and Schwartze teach claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 103 rejection
Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches the control arrangement outputs acknowledgement information in response to detection of the operator action (Column 9 line 26 ''the user 312 moves his hand 318 in relation to the graphic model 316 thereby creating a swiping gesture in the direction of arrow 320. The output device 314a shows an updated display of the graphic model 316, shown as graphic model 316a, on the display 315a'' with the updated display of the graphic model being the acknowledgement.)
As per claim 12
Klug and Schwartze teach claim limitations previously rejected in claim 10’s 103 rejection
Please see claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches a motor door vehicle arrangement has an electrical drive arrangement for the motorized adjustment of the motor vehicle door wherein the control arrangement activates the drive arrangement for performing the opening process or the closing process in response to detection of the operator action (Figure: The flow of components in label 114, Column 5 line 41 ''The computing device 114 can include a controller 118 with a processor (not shown). The movable partitions described above are shown schematically as part of the computing device 114 as movable partition 118. Each movable partition 118 can have a motor 120 for mechanically and electrically controlling the movable
part it ion'')
As per claim 13
Klug and Schwartze teach claim limitations previously rejected in claim 10’s 103 rejection
Please see claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery unlocking of a motor-vehicle lock assigned to the motor-vehicle door, motorized adjustment of the motor-vehicle door into a partly opened position, motorized adjustment of the motor-vehicle door into an open position (Column 5 line 37 ''Each movable partition 118 can have a motor 120 for mechanically and electrically controlling the movable partition'', Column 17 line 29 ''vehicle command including a movable partition equal to front vehicle door and an action of open 90 degrees.")
As per claim 15
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 3. See claim 3’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches the optical display produces a display of operator information when
the detection routine is triggered. Whinnery provides operator information via user and vehicle associated UI content on the display (Column 8 line 19 ''the output device 132 includes storage devices 140, which can include a database of one or more graphic models, each graphic model associated with a vehicle and a user. Thus, in one embodiment, the gesture module 148 can display a list of vehicles (e.g., from the storage devices 140) to a user on the display 135''). Whinnery explains the authentication workflow is enabled ''upon authentication'' and the UI display is the user interaction surface, therefore operator information is produced during enabled detection/authentication routine.
As per claim 16
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 3. See claim 3’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches where in the control arrangement triggers authentication in response to
sensing that the motor vehicle door arrangement is being approached by the operator by a proximity sensor ( Column 13 line 41 ''when the key FOB 152 is within a predetermined range of the vehicle, the passive entry system 126 can authenticate the key FOB 152."), or wherein the authentication check is based on a biometric analysis of the operator and/or is based on the detection of an electronic key (Column 13 line 38 '' the key FOB 152 can be used for authentication with the vehicle'')
As per claim 17
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. See claim 1
Whinnery teaches wherein the display of the operating element provides a visual depiction of the specified operator gesture (Column 12 line 66 ''hand 506 of a user (not shown) is carrying out a gesture in relation to the graphic model 504 in a direction shown by arrow 508'')
As per claim 18
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. See claim 1
Whinnery teaches the control arrangement outputs acknowledged information by the optical display arrangement (Column 9 line 20 ''the gesture module 148 can update the graphic model on the display 135 based on the gestures'' and Column 9 line 28 ''The output device 314a shows an updated display of the graphic model'') in response to detection of the operator action ( Column 9 line 33 ''...gesture module 148 can update the graphic model on the display 135 based on the gestures relative to the graphic model'' and column 9 line 30 ''The graphic model 316a displays an updated graphic model of the vehicle 102 with the rear vehicle door open based on the gesture..." The updated display state is a visual confirmation to the operator that the gesture was recognized and acted upon i.e.
acknowledgement output via display)
Claim 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug et al
US 20220309759 Al in view of Schwartze et aI (Schwartze hereinafter US 11493758 B2) in further view of Bihler et al (Bihler hereinafter, US 7586402 B2)
As per claim 7
Klug and Schwartze teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 103 rejection. See Claim 1’s 103 rejection
Klug and Schwartze do not teach an obstacle detection routine in which a possible collision of the motor vehicle door in the opening process and or closing process with an object that is in the movement area and or is approaching the movement area is determined
Bihler teaches in response to detection of the operator action, the control arrangement performs an obstacle detection routine (Column 3 line 65 “The reaction signal can trigger an acoustic or optical warning, when the opening of a door is initiated…An opened door is recognized for example…” Column 4 line 49 ''device for avoiding collisions when opening vehicle doors with a collision monitoring unit." Column 6 line 41” The micro-processor 10b extrapolates the movement path up to a pre-determined time and determines the probability space for the vehicle as well as for the detected objects. If a collision danger is recognized, the micro-processor 10b provides via the bus system 11 a reaction signal to the control unit 13” in which a possible collision of the motor-vehicle door in the opening process or closing process with an object that is in the movement area or is approaching the movement area is determined. (''Column 4 line 50''...monitoring unit includes an evaluation unit, which recognizes-objects in the environment of the vehicle from sensor data of the environment sensors, and determines movement paths for the detected objects… The collision monitoring system further includes a micro-processor which is adapted to compute a probability space for the vehicle and for the detected objects from the respective movement paths, and to recognize an overlapping of the probability spaces. The micro-processor provides a reaction signal to indicate a danger of collision to the warning means when an overlapping has been determined. " ). Bihler’s system is triggered in response to the door operation; Column 5 line 17 ''...the collision monitoring unit is activated as soon as... opening of a door is recognized.”)
Accordingly at the time this invention was effectively filed a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify the Klug/Schwartze workflow with Bihlers concept (directed towards a collision monitoring unit for opening vehicle doors that recognizes objects from the environment sensors, determines object movement paths and collision risk as well as activation of said monitoring unit when door opening is recognized and preventing door opening when collision risk is detected) and arrived at the claim limitations of claim 7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see that this modification improves operational safety and reliability by reducing the likelihood of collisions between environmental objects and the door while keeping the underlying operator action detection and waveguide-based display and sensing features of the base modified system. Essentially when a gesture or the approach itself is registered, the system can evaluate the surroundings and only allow the door to open when there is no possibility of collision; this mitigates user unawareness to accidental damage.
As per claim 19
Klug, Schwartze and Bhibler teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 7’s 103 rejection. See claim 7’s 103 rejection.
Schwartze teaches control arrangement outputs acknowledgement information by the optical display arrangement, in response to detection of the operator action. (Column 6 line 26 “In return, the driver can receive optical feedback on an image plane in front of or behind the pane, which informs him that the vehicle has been opened. “ )
Claim 8, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug et al
US 20220309759 Al in view of Schwartze et aI (Schwartze hereinafter US 11493758 B2) in further view of in view of Popovich et al (Popovich hereinafter WO 2017060665 Al ''WAVEGUIDE DISPLAY'').
As per claim 8
Klug and Schwartze teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 103 rejection
Klug and Schwartze do not teach the optical display arrangement is set up for outputting the display with an adjustable wavelength range, and wherein the first [[and/]]or the second coupling portion has or have at least one optical filter, so that the display is adjustable in dependence on the wavelength range of the light by way of the first or the second coupling portion.
Popovich teaches the optical display arrangement is setup for outputting the display with an adjustable wavelength range ( Detailed description ''at least one of the input, fold or output gratings may combine two or more spectral diffraction prescriptions to expand the spectral bandwidth '' and ''color multiplexed grating may be used to diffract two or more of the primary colors'') the first or the second coupling portion has or have at least one optical filter so that the display is adjustable in dependence on the wavelength range of the light by way of the first or the second coupling portion (Detailed description ''dichroic filters...between the input grating regions ...to control color crosstalk.")
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed
would have been motivated to incorporate Popovich' s waveguide display features (multi wavelength selective filtering at the coupling regions) in the Klug/Schwartze pipeline because this enhancement to the modified pipeline provides a straightforward way to tune the visible appearance of the display and or the detection sensor. This allows for users to have increased and improved visibility, contrast and reduced stray light. While continuously maintaining Whinnery's underlying image based gesture detection and door actuation workflow.
As per claim 11
Klug and Schwartze teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 10 's 103 rejection. Please see claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Popovich teaches that light can be made to exit from the first surface or the second surface i.e. coupling out light from an inner side and or outer side (Abstract ''The output grating...causes the light to exit the first waveguide from the first surface or the second surface'') and coupling in light from an inner side and or outer side via an input coupler receiving light from a display source (Summary of invention: ''input coupler is configured to receive collimated light from a display source and to cause the light to travel within the waveguide via total internal reflection between the first surface and the second surface''
As per claim 20
Klug , Schwartze and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 8’s 103 rejection. See claim 8’s 103 rejection.
Popovich teaches an optical filter being respectively assigned a holographic optical element (''The present disclosure relates to displays including but not limited to near eye displays and more particularly to holographic waveguide displays." Popovich places each dichroic filter between input grating regions of the waveguides ''disposing dichroic filters 141, 142 between the input grating regions of the red and blue and the blue and green waveguides''. The dichroic filters are assigned in direction association with specific input grating (Holographic Optical Element) regions to control wavelength behaviors (color crosstalk) for those grating regions.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug et al
US 20220309759 Al in view of Schwartze et aI (Schwartze hereinafter US 11493758 B2) in further view of in view of Popovich et al (Popovich hereinafter US 10437064 B2)
As per claim 9
Klug and Schwartze teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 103 rejection. See claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Klug nor Schwartze teach the first coupling portion has multiple coupling regions, which have the effect of producing selective coupling in of light into a field of view assigned to the coupling region or selective coupling out of light from a field of view assigned to the coupling region.
Popovich teaches the first coupling portion has multiple coupling regions (Column 10 line 1 ''The GRIN waveguides 251-253 are coupled into a waveguide 254 containing an image extraction grating by coupling means symbolically indicated by 1210-1212.) which have the effect of producing selective coupling in of light into a field of view assigned to the coupling region or selective coupling out of light from a field of view assigned to the coupling region. (Column 10 line 4 ''The output from the image extraction waveguide comprises collimated light in the field of view regions or tiles labelled 1213-1215'' separate coupling structures i.e. ''tiles'' support regional optical routing which aligns with the limitation of selective coupling into a field of view assigned to a coupling region)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was
effectively filed would have found it obvious to further modify the Klug/Schwartze workflow to include Popovich's concept directed to coupling light through multiple coupling means to give output in discrete field of view regions or tiles, providing a usable framework for region to field of view partitioning of coupling dynamics. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Popovich's concept allows for more regulated fields of view and specific optical behavior. Such as reducing unintended visibility in an undesignated viewing space. This improves usability and fleshes out the waveguide interface.
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 SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-8130. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights