DETAILED ACTION This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 18/334,783 filed June 14, 2023, which is a divisional of non-provisional application 16/219,016 (now US Patent 11,712,360) fled December 13, 2018, which claims priority from provisional application 62/598,388 filed December 13, 2017. Claims 1-19, as originally filed, are currently pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on November 7, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . The disclosure of the prior-filed application, provisional application 62/598,388, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 13-15 are directed toward “a grip” and features thereof which were not described in the provisional application and are therefore not entitled to the priority benefit of the provisional application. For the purpose of applicable prior art, claims 13-15 have the effective filing date of December 13, 2018, which is the filing date of the parent application 16/219,016. Claims 1-12 and 16-18 will have the effective filing date of December 13, 2017, which is the filing date of the provisional application 62/598,388. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “affixment member affixed to the brace” and “a locking mechanism (which is part of the finger carrier assembly) configured to be removably attached to the affixment member” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, F igs . 1-20 illustrate the locking mechanism (170) affixed to the brace with affixment member (160) of the finger carrier assembly (150) is removably attached to the locking mechanism (170). Further, the limitations of claims 6 (the affixment member includes a dual side release buckle and the locking mechanism incudes a catch), 7 ( the locking mechanism removably attached to the affixment member via magnetic force), 8 (the locking mechanism removably attached to the affixment member via friction fit) , and 12 (the finger carrier assembly include a set of cables coupling the finger assembly to the locking mechanism and a tightening mechanism coupled to the cables) are not illustrated in the drawings. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claims 3-5, 17 , and 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 3 recites the limitation “the catch” and claim 4 recites the limitations “the loop” and “the catch”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For examination purposes, claims 3 and 4 have been interpreted as depending from claim 2. Claim 5 is included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from rejected claim 4. Claims 17 and 18 each recite limitations directed to the method of using the orthotic device; however, since claim 1 is directed to the orthotic device, claims 17 and 18 encompass both the apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus which render claims 17 and 18 indefinite since it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation , 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p). For examination purposes, claims 17 and 18 have been interpreted with respect to the intended use of the orthotic device, for example claim 17 has been interpreted as “wherein the device is configured such that the wearer can place the set of fingers” and claim 18 has been interpreted as “wherein the device is configured such that the wearer can use a free hand” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 s 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 , and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 2016/0287422) in view of Marx (US 5,876,363). Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a powered orthotic device (device 100) of the type being removably attachable to an arm of a wearer, the device (100) including a brace (brace system with sub-assemblies 110, 150) , a finger engagement member (first section 114) coupled to the brace to engage a set of fingers, a thumb engagement member (second section 116) , and a hand actuator (actuator assembly 130) configured to cause motion of the finger engagement member (114) relative to the thumb engagement member (116) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0044-0047). However, Kelly fails to teach an affixment member affixed to the brace and a removably attachable finger carrier assembly, the finger carrier assembly including a finger carrier shaped to engage the set of fingers of the wearer when the finger carrier assembly is attached to the affixment member and a locking mechanism configured to be removably attached to the locking mechanism, wherein the affixment member and the finger carrier assembly together constitute the finger engagement member. Marx discloses an orthotic device comprising a brace ( cast or splint 33) , an affixment member ( extension arm 31 + cross-arm 32) affixed to the brace ( 33 ) , and a finger carrier assembly, the finger carrier assembly (finger cuffs 15 + tension lines 35 + screws 23 + guide nuts 24) including a finger carrier ( finger cuffs 15 + tension lines 35 ) shaped to engage a finger of a wearer when the finger carrier assembly (15+35+23+24) is attached to the affixment member ( 31+32 ) and a locking mechanism ( screws 23 + guide nuts 24 ) configured to be removably attached to the affixment member ( 31+32 ), wherein the affixment member ( 31+32 ) and the finger carrier assembly (15+35+23+24) together constitute a finger engagement member so that the wearer is capable of donning the orthotic device without assistance by a second person by attaching the orthotic device to the arm of the wearer, placing a set of fingers into the finger carrier (15+ 35 ), and using a free hand of the wearer to affix the affixment member (31+32) on the brace (33) to the locking mechanism (23+24) of the finger carrier assembly (Figs. 2, 9A-9B, 12, 14, & 16; column 4, lines 5- 10, 26-32, 40-45 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by Kelly to include an affixment member affixed to the brace and a removably attachable finger carrier assembly including a finger carrier and a locking mechanism configured to be removably attached to the affixment member as taught by Marx for the purpose of permitting a wide range of adjustment of the finger engagement member with respect to the brace . Applicant is reminded that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claim 1 including the “affixment member affixed to the brace” and “a locking mechanism (which is part of the finger carrier assembly) configured to be removably attached to the affixment member” or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Regarding claim s 2 , 4, and 5 , the combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Marx further discloses that the affixment member (31+32) includes a loop (arm 31 forms a loop around a slot) and the locking mechanism (23+24) includes a catch (screw 23) that removably retains the loop (31) , wherein the locking mechanism (23+24) includes a release (by disengaging screw 23 from nut 24) configured to disengage the loop (31) from the catch (23) , wherein the release is configured to slide (around the mating helical threads of screw 23 and nut 24) between a latched position that retains the loop (31) and an unlatched position that disengages the loop (31) (Figs. 14 & 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx such that the affixment member includes a loop and the locking mechanism includes a catch that removably retains the loop as further taught by Marx for the purpose of permitting a wide range of adjustment of the finger carrier assembly along the affixment member. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Marx further discloses that the finger carrier (15+35) includes a set of receivers (cuffs 15), each of the receivers (15) being configured for a distinct finger of the wearer such that the wearer may place a distinct finger in each distinct receiver (15) of the set of receivers (15), wherein each receiver (15) in the set of receivers (15) is selected from the group consisting of a groove, a ring, a sleeve, a cup, and combinations thereof (Fig. 12). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Marx further discloses that the affixment member (31+32) is disposed on a portion of the brace (33) configured to be coupled to a dorsal surface of the wearer’s hand or a lateral surface of the wearer’s hand (Fig. 2). Regarding claims 17 and 18, the combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, wherein the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx is capable of being used such that the wearer can place the set of fingers into the finger carrier (15) before using a free hand to affix the locking member (23+24) to the affixment member (31+32) or the wearer can use a free hand to affix the locking member (23+24) to the affixment member (31+32) before placing the set of fingers into the finger carrier (15). Claim s 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Marx as applied to claim s 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Silfverskiold (US 4,790,301). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the catch is spring-loaded in a latched position. Silfverskiold discloses an orthotic device comprising a brace (first part 1 of splint), an affixment member (outrigger 4) affixed to the brace (1), and a finger carrier assembly (spring mechanism 8 + line 9 + finger cuff 10), the finger carrier assembly (8+9+10) including a finger carrier (finger cuff 10) and a locking mechanism (spring mechanism 8), wherein the affixment member (4) include a loop (outrigger 4 is U-shaped forming a loop) and the locking mechanism includes a catch ( housing 30 having apertured brackets 33) capable of removably retaining the loop (4), and wherein the catch (30) is spring-loaded (with spring 46) in a latched position (Figs. 1-2 & 5-6; column 1, lines 66-68; column 2, lines 1-6 & 50-64; column 3, lines 64-66; column 4, lines 1-16 & 49-56; column 5,lines 3-61; column 6, lines 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the locking mechanism of the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx to include a catch is spring-loaded in a latched position as taught by Silfverskiold for the purpose of providing a biasing force to assist in flexing a finger. Regarding claim 12, t he combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Marx further discloses that the finger carrier assembly includes a set of cables (tension lines 35) coupling the finger carrier (15) to the locking mechanism (23+24) (Figs. 2 & 14; column 4, lines 40-43). However, the combination of Kelly and Marx fails to teach a tightening mechanism coupled to the cables, wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to adjust tension in the cables thereby enabling the cables to become tight for the wearer to don the orthotic device and to become slack for the wearer to doff the orthotic device. Silfverskiold discloses an orthotic device comprising a brace (first part 1 of splint), an affixment member (outrigger 4) affixed to the brace (1), and a finger carrier assembly (spring mechanism 8 + line 9 + finger cuff 10), the finger carrier assembly (8+9+10) including a finger carrier (finger cuff 10), a cable (line 9), and a tightening mechanism (spring mechanism 8) coupled to the cable (9), wherein the tightening mechanism (8) is configured to adjust tension in the cable (9) thereby enabling the cable (9) to become tight for the wearer to don the orthotic device and to become slack for the wearer to doff the orthotic device (Figs. 1-2 & 5-6; column 1, lines 66-68; column 2, lines 1-6 & 50-64; column 3, lines 64-66; column 4, lines 1-16 & 49-56; column 5,lines 3-61; column 6, lines 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the finger carrier assembly of the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx to include a tightening mechanism coupled to the cables and configured to adjust tension in the cables as taught by Silfverskiold for the purpose of providing easy adjustment of the force applied to suit a particular patient’s requirements. Applicant is reminded that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claim 12 or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Marx as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Dorr et al. (US 2019/0167510 ). The combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the affixment member includes dual side release buckle and the locking mechanism includes a catch that removably retains the dual side release buckle. Dorr discloses known fastening devices include buckles and screws depending for affixing, coupling, or releasably coupling one or more components together (¶ 0076-0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx such that the affixment member is removably retained with the locking mechanism using a buckle and catch assembly as taught by Dorr since either configuration would perform the function of removably attaching the locking mechanism to the affixment member with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant is reminded that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claim 6 or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Marx as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Paffett (US 2014/0276268). The combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the locking mechanism removably attaches to the affixment member via magnetic force or friction fit. Paffett discloses that the screw fit, friction fitting, and magnetic attachment are all suitable means for attaching elements together (¶ 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the locking mechanism of the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx to removably attach to the affixment member via magnetic force or friction fit as taught by Paffett since either configuration would perform the function of removably attaching the locking mechanism to the affixment member with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant is reminded that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claims 7 and 8 or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Marx as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Rodriguez (US 5,800,561). The combination of Kelly and Marx discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach a grip permanently attached to the finger carrier that is configured to provide an increased surface area for contacting an object relative to the finger carrier, wherein the grip includes a rigid plate, and wherein an underside of the grip has a textured surface to increase friction between the grip and an object to be grasped. Rodriguez discloses an orthotic device comprising finger carrier and a grip (gripping member 10) permanently attached to the finger carrier that is configured to provide an increased surface area for contacting an object relative to the finger carrier, wherein the grip (10) includes a rigid plate, and wherein an underside (gripping surface 12) of the grip (10) has a textured surface to increase friction between the grip (10) and an object to be grasped (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 52-57; column 5, lines 8-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Marx to include a grip permanently attached to the finger carrier that is configured to provide an increased surface area for contacting an object relative to the finger carrier, wherein the grip includes a rigid plate, and wherein an underside of the grip has a textured surface to increase friction between the grip and an object to be grasped as taught by Rodriguez for the purpose of improving the wearer’s ability to grip object while wearing the orthotic device. Claim s 1 , 9-11 , and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 2016/0287422) in view of Agee et al. (US 6 , 565 , 563) . Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a powered orthotic device (device 100) of the type being removably attachable to an arm of a wearer, the device (100) including a brace (brace system with sub-assemblies 110, 150) , a finger engagement member (first section 114) coupled to the brace to engage a set of fingers, a thumb engagement member (second section 116) , and a hand actuator (actuator assembly 130) configured to cause motion of the finger engagement member (114) relative to the thumb engagement member (116) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0044-0047). However, Kelly fails to teach an affixment member affixed to the brace and a removably attachable finger carrier assembly, the finger carrier assembly including a finger carrier shaped to engage the set of fingers of the wearer when the finger carrier assembly is attached to the affixment member and a locking mechanism configured to be removably attached to the locking mechanism, wherein the affixment member and the finger carrier assembly together constitute the finger engagement member. Agee discloses an orthotic device comprising a brace ( wrist brace 100 ), an affixment member ( transverse member 120 + rigid linkage 250 + assist joint 180 ) affixed to the brace ( 100 ), and a finger carrier assembly (wrap member 760+770 / wrap assembly 800) , the finger carrier assembly (760+770/800) including a finger carrier ( underlying wrap member 770 ) shaped to engage a finger of a wearer when the finger carrier assembly is attached to the affixment member ( 120+250+180 ) and a locking mechanism ( hinge tower 750 / pins 220+230 ) configured to be removably attached to the affixment member ( 120+250+180 ), wherein the affixment member ( 120+250+180 ) and the finger carrier assembly ( 760+770/800 ) together constitute a finger engagement member so that the wearer is capable of donning the orthotic device without assistance by a second person by attaching the orthotic device to the arm of the wearer, placing a set of fingers into the finger carrier ( 770 ), and using a free hand of the wearer to affix the affixment member ( 120+250+180 ) on the brace ( 100 ) to the locking mechanism ( 750/220+230 ) of the finger carrier assembly (Figs. 3 & 13D-14 ; column 6, lines 27-29 & 45- 47; column 7, lines 7-10 & 52-58 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by Kelly to include an affixment member affixed to the brace and a removably attachable finger carrier assembly including a finger carrier and a locking mechanism configured to be removably attached to the affixment member as taught by Agee for the purpose of allowing the finger engagement member to be adjusted with respect to the brace to fit different sized hands . Applicant is reminded that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claim 1 including the “affixment member affixed to the brace” and “a locking mechanism (which is part of the finger carrier assembly) configured to be removably attached to the affixment member” or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination of Kelly and Agee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Agee further discloses that the finger carrier (770) includes a set of receivers (a wrap member 770 for up to all four fingers), each of the receivers (770) being configured for a distinct finger of the wearer such that the wearer may place a distinct finger in each distinct receiver (770) of the set of receivers (770), wherein each receiver (770) in the set of receivers (770) is selected from the group consisting of a groove, a ring, a sleeve, a cup, and combinations thereof (Fig. 13D; Abstract). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kelly and Agee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Agee further discloses that the finger carrier assembly (760+770/800) further includes a rigid stem (saddle structure 740) disposed between the finger carrier (770) and the locking mechanism (750/220+230) (Fig. 13D; column 12, lines 62-66). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kelly and Agee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Agee further discloses that the affixment member (120+250+180) is disposed on a portion of the brace (100) configured to be coupled to a dorsal surface of the wearer’s hand or a lateral surface of the wearer’s hand (Fig. 3). Regarding claims 17 and 18, the combination of Kelly and Agee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, wherein the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Agee is capable of being used such that the wearer can place the set of fingers into the finger carrier (770) before using a free hand to affix the locking member (750/220+230) to the affixment member (120+250+180) or the wearer can use a free hand to affix the locking member (750/220+230) to the affixment member (120+250+180) before placing the set of fingers into the finger carrier (770). Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Agee as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Rodriguez (US 5,800,561). The combination of Kelly and Agee discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach a grip permanently attached to the finger carrier that is configured to provide an increased surface area for contacting an object relative to the finger carrier, wherein the grip includes a rigid plate, and wherein an underside of the grip has a textured surface to increase friction between the grip and an object to be grasped. Rodriguez discloses an orthotic device comprising finger carrier and a grip (gripping member 10) permanently attached to the finger carrier that is configured to provide an increased surface area for contacting an object relative to the finger carrier, wherein the grip (10) includes a rigid plate, and wherein an underside (gripping surface 12) of the grip (10) has a textured surface to increase friction between the grip (10) and an object to be grasped (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 52-57; column 5, lines 8-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the orthotic device taught by the combination of Kelly and Agee to include a grip permanently attached to the finger carrier that is configured to provide an increased surface area for contacting an object relative to the finger carrier, wherein the grip includes a rigid plate, and wherein an underside of the grip has a textured surface to increase friction between the grip and an object to be grasped as taught by Rodriguez for the purpose of improving the wearer’s ability to grip object while wearing the orthotic device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3821 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5237 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KERI J NELSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 11/24/2025