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 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:
A. “laser beam generating device” in claim 1 interpreted to be a laser beam source and wavelength converter.
B. “irradiation device” in claim 1 interpreted to be a focus unit and a steering unit
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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the laser beam generated from the laser beam generating device " in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to “a first laser beam” and “a second laser beam”, not “a laser beam”. For the purposes of examination “the laser beam in claim 9 will be taken to be the first laser beam.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hiroyuki Suhara (US20210094232), hereinafter referred to as Suhara.
Regarding claim 1, Suhara teaches a thrust generating device for irradiating a target with a laser beam to generate thrust for the target, the thrust generating device comprising: a laser beam generating device (as interpreted under 112(f) above) configured to generate a first laser beam having a first wavelength and a second laser beam having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Fig. 10A as annotated below);
and an irradiation device (as interpreted under 112(f) above) configured to simultaneously irradiate the target with the first laser beam and the second laser beam (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Second beam)][AltContent: textbox (First beam)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
626
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam generating device includes: a laser beam source configured to generate the first laser beam (laser light source 201);
and a wavelength converter configured to convert a part of the first laser beam generated from the laser beam source into the second laser beam (The reference laser light emitted from the reference laser light source 201 enters the non-linear optical crystal element 204, and the reference laser light and its second harmonic are emitted from the non-linear optical crystal element 204 (para. [0133])).
Regarding claim 3, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 2, wherein the second wavelength is a wavelength shorter than the first wavelength (the reference laser light is used as the flying laser beam 211c, and the second harmonic is used as the fixing laser beam 221c (para. [0134])), and wherein the wavelength converter includes a non-linear optical crystal configured to generate a harmonic of the first laser beam (non-linear optical crystal element 204).
Regarding claim 5, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 2, wherein the second wavelength is a wavelength 1/2 or 1/4 of the first wavelength (the reference laser light is used as the flying laser beam 211c, and the second harmonic is used as the fixing laser beam 221c (para. [0134])).
Regarding claim 7, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 2, wherein the laser beam source is a solid laser or a fiber laser (The laser light source 21 is a short pulse laser and emits the flying laser beam 211 by using, for example, a solid-state laser system, a fiber laser system, or a semiconductor laser system (para. [0042])) that oscillates at a wavelength of 1 pm band (The laser light source 21c emits a flying laser beam 211c which is reference laser light … As an example, the flying laser beam 211c is infrared light having a wavelength of 1064 nm (para. [0125])).
Regarding claim 8, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 1, wherein the second wavelength has a higher absorptivity in the target than the first wavelength (The green light absorption rate of the light-absorbing layer 13 is higher than its infrared light absorption rate, and the light-absorbing layer 13 (para. [0127])).
Regarding claim 9, A spacecraft for irradiating a target with a laser beam to change an orbit or an attitude of the target in a cosmic space, the spacecraft comprising: the thrust generating device according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1 above), wherein the irradiation device irradiates the target with the laser beam so that the laser beam (Interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(b) above) generated from the laser beam generating device converges at the target (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
626
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Ruediger Paschotta (6834064) hereinafter referred to as Paschotta.
Regarding claim 4, Suhara fails to explicitly teach the thrust generating device according to claim 3, wherein the wavelength converter has wavelength conversion efficiency of 10% or less.
However, Paschotta teaches wherein the wavelength converter has wavelength conversion efficiency of 10% or less (For laser pulses with, e.g., 10 ps duration and the same average power (15 W), the conversion efficiency for this process in LBO would be expected to be in the order of 10% only(col. 8, lines 40-43)).
Paschotta details the benefits of a non-linear optical crystal with a low conversion efficiency: “[t]he main advantage of this is that the nonlinear crystal can be operated at constant temperature (possibly not even requiring active temperature control), which is particularly important for tunable parametric devices (e.g., optical parametric oscillators or optical parametric generators) because very fast tuning of the output wavelengths in wide ranges is then possible by changing the propagation angle in the nonlinear crystal rather than the crystal temperature, which inherently needs much more time to be changed (col. 8, lines 46-56).” Therefore, if a high conversion efficiency is not necessary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara to include the teachings of Paschotta such that the conversion efficiency of the non-linear optical crystal is 10% or less.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Okazaki Masahide (EP 2477069 B1), hereinafter referred to as Masahide.
Regarding claim 6, Suhara fails to teach the thrust generating device according to claim 2 wherein the second wavelength is a wavelength longer than the first wavelength, and wherein the wavelength converter includes an optical parametric oscillator.
However, Masahide teaches teach wherein the second wavelength is a wavelength longer than the first wavelength (Fig. 17B as annotated below), and wherein the wavelength converter includes an optical parametric oscillator (The first periodically poled part may be disposed as a first wavelength conversion part which forms either one of … an optical parametric oscillator (para. [0096])).
PNG
media_image4.png
385
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in Suhara, such that the second wavelength is longer than the first. Suhara teaches an ablation device which generates two light beams. Suhara teaches “a first light beam corresponding to the light absorption wavelength of the irradiation target 11, to cause the irradiation target 11 carried on the transparent sheet 12 to fly (para. [0038])” and “[a] second light beam fixes the irradiation target caused to fly by the first light beam (para. [0030]).” These light beams converge at the target. It does not matter whether the shorter or longer wavelength of light is produced first as long as the beams have the desired wavelength to produce ablation. Making the second wavelength longer than the first is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara to include the teachings of Masahide such that the wavelength converter includes an optical parametric oscillator. The parametric oscillator offers wavelength tunability that may be difficult to achieve with lasers.
Claims 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara, in view of T.J. Lin (US 5144630 A), hereinafter referred to as Lin, and in further view of K. Sugioka et al, “Multiwavelength irradiation effect in fused quartz ablation using vacuum-ultraviolet Raman laser”, 22 May 1995, Applied Surface Science 96-98, pages 347-351, hereinafter referred to as Sugioka.
Regarding claim 10, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam generating device includes: a laser beam source configured to generate the first laser beam (laser light source 201);
a first wavelength converter configured to convert a part of the first laser beam generated from the laser beam source into the second laser beam (The reference laser light emitted from the reference laser light source 201 enters the non-linear optical crystal element 204, and the reference laser light and its second harmonic are emitted from the non-linear optical crystal element 204 (para. [0133]));
Suhara fails to teach and a second wavelength converter configured to convert a part of the second laser beam converted by the first wavelength converter into a third laser beam having a third wavelength different from both the first and second wavelengths.
Lin teaches and a second wavelength converter configured to convert a part of the second laser beam converted by the first wavelength converter into a third laser beam having a third wavelength different from both the first and second wavelengths (pulsed solid state laser 1 having an IR wavelength 2 (1.064 nm for Nd:YAG, 1.053 nm for Nd:YLF) and is coupled by optics 3 into the first nonlinear doubling crystal 4 producing a second harmonic beam having a green wavelength (530 nm for Nd:YAG, 527 nm for Nd:YLF). The harmonic beam 5 is further frequency converted by the second nonlinear crystal 6 producing a fourth harmonic beam having a UV wavelength 7 (266 nm for Nd:YAG, 260 nm for Nd:YLF) (col. 4, lines 23-31)).
PNG
media_image5.png
268
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further, Sugioka teaches a third laser beam having a third wavelength different from both the first and second wavelengths (The VUV Raman laser, using high-order anti Stokes Raman scattering of the fourth harmonic of a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser (a 266 nm wavelength and an 8 ns pulse width) in an H, gas Raman cell, was used for quartz ablation (pages 347-348, para. [0003]))
To be clear, Lin teaches a second wavelength converter configured to convert a part of the second laser beam converted by the first wavelength converter into a third laser beam having a third wavelength different from both the first and second wavelengths. Sugioka teaches a study conducted on multiwavelength irradiation for ablation with results proving the benefits of multiwavelength irradiation for ablation: “Fig. 2(c) and (d) show SEM photographs of the surfaces ablated by the VUV Raman laser and the fourth harmonic of the Nd:YAG laser at the laser fluence of 20 J/cm* and 10 pulses, respectively. The surface corresponding to the VUV Raman laser seems in some measure smooth, while irregular microstructure like resolidificated swelling was created for the (d) sample. Thus, simultaneous irradiation of the VUV Raman laser beams are much attractive for high-quality microfabrication of fused quartz (page 349, para. [0002]-[0003]) ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara, to include the teachings of Lin and Sugioka by including second wavelength converter configured to convert a part of the second laser beam converted by the first wavelength converter into a third laser beam having a third wavelength different from both the first and second wavelengths. Doing so allows for the inclusion of a fourth harmonic, for its higher quality abrasion capabilities.
Regarding claim 11, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 10, wherein the second laser beam is a second harmonic of the first laser beam (The reference laser light emitted from the reference laser light source 201 enters the non-linear optical crystal element 204, and the reference laser light and its second harmonic are emitted from the non-linear optical crystal element 204 (para. [0133])
Suhara fails to teach and the third laser beam is a fourth harmonic of the first laser beam.
However, Lin teaches the third laser beam is a fourth harmonic of the first laser beam (The harmonic beam 5 is further frequency converted by the second nonlinear crystal 6 producing a fourth harmonic beam having a UV wavelength 7 (266 nm for Nd:YAG, 260 nm for Nd:YLF) (col. 4, lines 23-31)).
Regarding claim 12, Suahara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 11, and the first wavelength is 1064 nm. (As an example, the flying laser beam 211 c is infrared light having a wavelength of 1064 nm (para. [0125])).
Suhara fails to teach wherein the laser beam source is a Nd:YAG laser beam source.
However, Lin teaches wherein the laser beam source is a Nd:YAG laser beam source (Referring to FIG. 1, the optical system according to this embodiment of the present invention, comprises a commercial pulsed solid state laser 1 having an IR wavelength 2 (1.064 nm for Nd:YAG (col. 4, lines 20-24)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara to include the teachings of Lin, such that the laser beam source is a Nd:YAG laser beam source. The benefits of using an Nd:YAG laser beam source are detailed by Lin: “These basic lasers are well-established and may be operated at pulse durations of subpicosecond to tens of nanoseconds, and at repetition rates of few Hz to GHz. Therefore, the multiwavelength laser disclosed in the present invention can also reserve all the good features of the basic lasers while expanding their spectra from UV to IR ranges using a set of nonlinear crystals (col. 3, lines 41-49)”
Regarding claim 14, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 12, wherein the device does not include a configuration for eliminating the second laser beam (Fig. 9 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
626
646
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Suhara fails to teach the irradiation device is configured to simultaneously irradiate the target with the first, second and third laser beams.
However, Sugioka teaches the thrust generating device according to claim 12, wherein the device does not include a configuration for eliminating the second laser beam, and the irradiation device is configured to simultaneously irradiate the target with the first, second and third laser beams (For the transitional measurement, the VUV Raman laser beams having fifteen different wavelengths were simultaneously incident to fused quartz page 348. Para [0002])) (For investigation of the transitional effect, pulse forms of the fundamental beam transmitted by the quartz with and without the simultaneous irradiation by the multiwavelength beams (page 350, para. [0002])).
Sugioka teaches that enhancement of ablation is enabled by simultaneously irradiating a target with laser beams having different wavelengths. Further, Sugioka teaches performing ablation with more than three different wavelengths. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara, in view of Lin, to include the teachings of Sugioka such that the target is irradiated by the first and second laser beams, as taught by Suhara, and the third laser beam as taught by Lin. Doing so increases the ablation rate.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara, Lin, and Sugioka, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Paschotta.
Regarding claim 13, Suhara fails to teach the thrust generating device according to claim 12, wherein an intensity of the third laser beam is 1% or less of an intensity of the first laser beam.
However, Paschotta teaches thrust generating device according to claim 12, wherein an intensity of the third laser beam is 1% or less of an intensity of the first laser beam (For laser pulses with, e.g., 10 ps duration and the same average power (15 W), the conversion efficiency for this process in LBO would be expected to be in the order of 10% only(col. 8, lines 40-43)).
The intensity of the third laser beam is dependent on the conversion efficiency of the second wavelength converter. Paschotta details the benefits of a nonlinear optical crystal with a low conversion efficiency: “[t]he main advantage of this is that the nonlinear crystal can be operated at constant temperature (possibly not even requiring active temperature control), which is particularly important for tunable parametric devices (e.g., optical parametric oscillators or optical parametric generators) because very fast tuning of the output wavelengths in wide ranges is then possible by changing the propagation angle in the nonlinear crystal rather than the crystal temperature, which inherently needs much more time to be changed (col. 8, lines 46-56).” Therefore, if a high conversion efficiency is not necessary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara to include the teachings of Paschotta such that the conversion efficiency of the second wavelength converter is 10% or less, and thus producing an intensity of the third laser beam which is 1% or less of the intensity of the first laser beam.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara in view of Lin, and in further view of Xin Zhao et al, “Femtosecond laser ablation of aluminum in vacuum and air at high laser intensity”, 21 June 2013, Applied Surface Science Volume 283, Pages 94-99, hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 15, Suhara teaches the thrust generating device according to the thrust generating device according to wherein the first wavelength is 1064 nm (As an example, the flying laser beam 211c is infrared light having a wavelength of 1064 nm (para. [0125])) and an infrared semiconductor laser beam source configured to generate the second laser beam (The laser light source 22 is also a short pulse laser and emits the fixing laser beam 221 by using, for example, a solid-state laser system, a fiber laser system, or a semiconductor laser system (para. [0042]) (The laser light source 21 c emits a flying laser beam 211 c which is reference laser light and a fixing laser beam 221 c which is a second harmonic of the reference laser light. As an example, the flying laser beam 211 c is infrared light having a wavelength of 1064 nm) (para. [0125])).
Suhara fails to teach and the second wavelength is 800nm band, and wherein the laser beam generating device comprises a Nd:YAG laser beam source configured to generate the first laser beam.
Lin teaches wherein the laser beam generating device comprises a Nd:YAG laser beam source configured to generate the first laser beam (Referring to FIG. 1, the optical system according to this embodiment of the present invention, comprises a commercial pulsed solid state laser 1 having an IR wavelength 2 (1.064 nm for Nd:YAG (col. 4, lines 20-24)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Suhara to include the teachings of Lin such that the laser beam source is a Nd:YAG laser beam source. The benefits of using an Nd:YAG laser beam source are detailed by Lin: “These basic lasers are well-established and may be operated at pulse durations of subpicosecond to tens of nanoseconds, and at repetition rates of few Hz to GHz. Therefore, the multiwavelength laser disclosed in the present invention can also reserve all the good features of the basic lasers while expanding their spectra from UV to IR ranges using a set of nonlinear crystals (col. 3, lines 41-49)”
Further, Zhao teaches and the second wavelength is 800nm band (In this study, the ablation of aluminum by a near-infrared femtosecond laser pulse (800 nm, 100 fs) at different intensity is investigated (abstract)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Zhao such that the infrared semiconductor laser beam source configured to generate a second laser beam generates a beam in the 800nm band. Doing so would be useful for the ablation of aluminum because aluminum absorbs a laser beam at a wavelength of 800 nm band.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881