DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Korean Applications KR10-2022-0186376 filed December 27 th , 2022 and KR10-2022-0124663 filed September 29 th , 2022) . The Examiner notes the date used for search and consideration is September 29 th , 2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 25 th , 2023 and December 18 th , 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. The information disclosure statement filed February 27 th , 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed (or no translation of the non-patent literature was provided); and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The information disclosure statement filed February 27 th , 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) (i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1320” [Figure 13]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence written in legalese and not as a series of brief sentences written in narrative format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph 211 line 7, the abbreviation “ReLU” is not defined on first use. In Paragraph 216 line 2, the phrase “image. may” should read as --image. May-- for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. The use of the term “Bluetooth” and “Ant+” [Paragraph 328 – the list of various communication technologies], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor configured to” in claim 1. The Examiner notes the “memory” and “processor” claimed connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus claim 1 does not invoke Functional Analysis. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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, 7 – 11, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasavada, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0333 75 9 A1 referred to as “Vasavada” throughout) , and further in view of Kozko (US Patent #9,521,321 B1 referred to as “Kozko” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s September 25 th , 2023 IDS] and Karpenko, et al. (US Patent #10,805,530 B2 referred to as “Karpenko” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s September 25 th , 2023 IDS] . Regarding claim 11, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 17, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 18, see claim 8 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 19, see claim 9 w hich is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method. Regarding claim 20, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program. Regarding claim 1, Vasavada teaches an image stitching / composition technique for assembling images into 360 degree images using front and rear view images. Kozko teaches camera facing directions and additional stitching considerations and the camera arrangement with front / rear cameras. Karpenko teaches replicating images in front / rear cameras for stitching / compositions into 360 degree / spherical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasavada to have the camera arrangement as in Kozko and using multiple images for composition of ultra-wide angle images as in Karpenko. The combination teaches a memory storing at least one instruction [Vasavada Figures 1 – 2 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 34 – 3 8 (memory to store images and programs / functions to execute) , 64, 125 – 127 (memory to implement image processing tasks) and 232 ] ; and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to [Vasavada Figures 1 – 2 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 34 – 38 (CPU / processors and memory to store images and programs / functions to execute), 64, 125 – 127 (memory to implement image processing tasks with processors / CPU) and 232] : obtain a plurality of second front view images from a first front view image that is obtained by a front camera [ Vasavada Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 115A and 115B) as well as Paragraphs 67 – 69 (front / rear facing cameras taking many different types of images); Kozko Figures 2 – 3 (see at least reference character 230) as well as Column 7 line 32 – Column 8 line 20 (multiple image / different images taken from same camera with different parameters); Karpenko Figures 1 – 3 and 9 – 10 (see at least referen ce characters 102, 110, 112) as well as Column 6 lines 35 – 53 and Column 7 line 51 – Column 8 line 41 (virtual view / multiple copies from a viewpoint rendering obvious the feature claimed and can be incorporated into the numerous imaging techniques of Vasavada) ] , obtain a front view ultra-wide angle image by synthesizing the plurality of second front view images [ Vasavada Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 115A and 115B) as well as Paragraphs 67 – 69 (front / rear facing cameras taking many different types of images); Kozko Figures 2 – 3 (see at least reference character 230) as well as Column 7 line 32 – Column 8 line 20 (multiple image / different images taken from same camera with different parameters); Karpenko Figures 1 – 3 and 9 – 10 (see at least reference characters 102, 110, 112) as well as Column 4 lines 2 – 46 (wide angle images captured) and Column 6 lines 35 – 53 and Column 7 line 51 – Column 8 line 41 (virtual view / multiple copies from a viewpoint rendering obvious the feature claimed and can be incorporated into the numerous imaging techniques of Vasavada) ] , obtain a rear view ultra-wide angle image by synthesizing a plurality of rear view images [Vasavada Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 115A and 115B) as well as Paragraphs 47 – 50 (two views opposite of each other) and 67 – 69 (front / rear facing cameras taking many different types of images); Kozko Figures 2 – 3 (see at least reference character 230) as well as Column 7 line 32 – Column 8 line 20 (multiple image / different images taken from same camera with different parameters); Karpenko Figures 1 – 3 and 9 – 10 (see at least reference characters 102, 110, 112) as well as Column 4 lines 2 – 46 (wide angle images captured) and Column 6 lines 35 – 53 and Column 7 line 51 – Column 8 line 41 (virtual view / multiple copies from a viewpoint rendering obvious the feature claimed and can be incorporated into the numerous imaging techniques of Vasavada)] , and generate a 360-degree image by synthesizing the front view ultrawide angle image and the rear view ultra-wide angle image [Vasavada Figures 1 – 3 as well as Paragraphs 48 – 50 (stitching together wide angle images) and 68 – 69 (360 degree image from front and rear images which may include ultra-wide images as obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art) ; Kozko Figures 5 – 7 (subfigures included) as well as Column 12 lines 15 – 40 (front / rear image capture to stitch together) and Column 13 lines 32 – 55 (stitching multiple wide angle images into a 360 degree image) ] . The motivation to combine Kozko with Vasavada is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of multiple field of view image capture [Kozko Column 1 lines 22 – 42] in order to improve distortions and clarity during panoramic image capture including 360 degree / ultra-wide angle images [Kozko Column 1 lines 43 – 56, Column 5 lines 37 – 46, and Column 6 lines 4 – 37 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable]. The motivation to combine Karpenko with Kozko and Vasavada is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of displaying and stitching images together to form a 360 degree image [Karpenko Column 1 lines 28 – 51[ in order to improve / minimize distortions from the images to form the composited image (e.g. minimize fisheye lens distortion) [Karpenko Column 1 lines 41 – 57 and Column 4 lines 33 – 46 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable]. This is the motivation to combine Vasavada, Kozko, and Karp e nko which will be used throughout the claims. Regarding claim 7, Vasavada teaches an image stitching / composition technique for assembling images into 360 degree images using front and rear view images. Kozko teaches camera facing directions and additional stitching considerations and the camera arrangement with front / rear cameras. Karpenko teaches replicating images in front / rear cameras for stitching / compositions into 360 degree / spherical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasavada to have the camera arrangement as in Kozko and using multiple images for composition of ultra-wide angle images as in Karpenko. The combination teaches wherein the plurality of rear view images include at least two of a normal image, a wide angle image, or a telephoto image [Vasavada Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference characters 115A and 115B) as well as Paragraphs 50 and 68 – 69 (mage sensors may capture wide angle images for the front or rear sensor combinable with Karpenko Column 3 lines 10 – 27 and Column 4 lines 4 – 51 (wide angle lens on front and rear cameras)]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Vasavada, Kozko, and Karpenko. Regarding claim 8, Vasavada teaches an image stitching / composition technique for assembling images into 360 degree images using front and rear view images. Kozko teaches camera facing directions and additional stitching considerations and the camera arrangement with front / rear cameras. Karpenko teaches replicating images in front / rear cameras for stitching / compositions into 360 degree / spherical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasavada to have the camera arrangement as in Kozko and using multiple images for composition of ultra-wide angle images as in Karpenko. The combination teaches a user input interface [ Vasavada Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 300, 304, 313, and 308) as well as Paragraphs 68 – 69 (user interface on watch / camera system) ] , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to [See claim 1 for citations of the claimed “processor”] : receive an input of at least one of a first reference signal or a second reference signal via the user input interface [ Vasavada Paragraphs 68 – 73 (front / rear image capture which includes user input combinable with Kozko and Karpenko); Kozko Figure s 2 – 6 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 136, 220 , 362 (user interface), and 412 ) as well as Column 5 line 11 – Column 6 line 59 (front / rear / side cameras controlled by user to form wide angle images) and Column 10 lines 18 – 44 (user interface for inputs to be collected); Karpenko Column 3 line 10 – Column 4 line 32 (user input for camera control where the front / rear cameras are independently controlled to combine with Kozko and two rendering processes for front / rear images thus rendering obvious the two reference signals claimed ) ] , generate, based on the first reference signal being received, the front view ultra-wide angle image based on a first area selected according to the first reference signal [See claim 1 for citations of the “front view ultra-wide angle image” and additionally Vasavada Paragraphs 68 – 73 (front / rear image capture which includes user input combinable with Kozko and Karpenko); Kozko Figures 2 – 6 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 136, 220, 362 (user interface), and 412) as well as Column 5 line 11 – Column 6 line 59 (front / rear / side cameras controlled by user to form wide angle images) and Column 10 lines 18 – 44 (user interface for inputs to be collected); Karpenko Column 3 line 10 – Column 4 line 32 (user input for camera control where the front / rear cameras are independently controlled to combine with Kozko and two rendering processes for front / rear images thus rendering obvious the two reference signals claimed and the front / rear image capture claimed) and Column 12 lines 4 – 56 (user input to control lens / view used) ] , and generate, based on the second reference signal being received, the rear view ultra-wide angle image based on a second area selected according to the second reference signal [ See claim 1 for citations of the “rear view ultra-wide angle image” and additionally Vasavada Paragraphs 68 – 73 (front / rear image capture which includes user input combinable with Kozko and Karpenko); Kozko Figures 2 – 6 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 136, 220, 362 (user interface), and 412) as well as Column 5 line 11 – Column 6 line 59 (front / rear / side cameras controlled by user to form wide angle images) and Column 10 lines 18 – 44 (user interface for inputs to be collected); Karpenko Column 3 line 10 – Column 4 line 32 (user input for camera control where the front / rear cameras are independently controlled to combine with Kozko and two rendering processes for front / rear images thus rendering obvious the two reference signals claimed and the front / rear image capture claimed) and Column 12 lines 4 – 56 (user input to control lens / view used) ] . See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Vasavada, Kozko, and Karpenko. Regarding claim 9, Vasavada teaches an image stitching / composition technique for assembling images into 360 degree images using front and rear view images. Kozko teaches camera facing directions and additional stitching considerations and the camera arrangement with front / rear cameras. Karpenko teaches replicating images in front / rear cameras for stitching / compositions into 360 degree / spherical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasavada to have the camera arrangement as in Kozko and using multiple images for composition of ultra-wide angle images as in Karpenko. The combination teaches a photographing unit comprising the front camera and a plurality of rear cameras [ Vasavada Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 115A and 115B) as well as Paragraphs 47 – 50 (two views opposite of each other and front / rear facing cameras ) and 67 – 69 (front / rear facing cameras taking many different types of images); Kozko Figures 4 and 6 (front / rear arrangements of cameras) ], the plurality of rear cameras being configured to obtain the plurality of rear view images [ Vasavada Figure 3 (see at least reference characters 115A and 115B) as well as Paragraphs 47 – 50 (two views opposite of each other) and 67 – 69 (front / rear facing cameras taking many different types of images); Kozko Figures 2 – 3 (see at least reference character 230) as well as Column 7 line 32 – Column 8 line 20 (multiple image / different images taken from same camera with different parameters); Karpenko Figures 1 – 3 and 9 – 10 (see at least reference characters 102, 110, 112) as well as Column 4 lines 2 – 46 (wide angle images captured) and Column 6 lines 35 – 53 and Column 7 line 51 – Column 8 line 41 (virtual view / multiple copies from a viewpoint rendering obvious the feature claimed and can be incorporated into the numerous imaging techniques of Vasavada) ]. See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Vasavada, Kozko, and Karpenko. Regarding claim 10, Vasavada teaches an image stitching / composition technique for assembling images into 360 degree images using front and rear view images. Kozko teaches camera facing directions and additional stitching considerations and the camera arrangement with front / rear cameras. Karpenko teaches replicating images in front / rear cameras for stitching / compositions into 360 degree / spherical images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vasavada to have the camera arrangement as in Kozko and using multiple images for composition of ultra-wide angle images as in Karpenko. The combination teaches a communication interface [Vasavada Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included and see at least reference characters 326 (CPU), 327 (wired communications), 315, 316, 318, and 320) as well as Paragraphs 36 (communication capabilities with other devices) and 66 – 70 (communication devices / interfaces) ], wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to [See claim 1 for citations of the claimed “processor”] , via the communication interface [Vasavada Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included and see at least reference characters 326 (CPU), 327 (wired communications), 315, 316, 318, and 320) as well as Paragraphs 36 (communication capabilities with other devices) and 66 – 70 (communication devices / interfaces)] , receive the first front view image and the plurality of rear view images from a first user terminal and transmit the 360-degree image to the first user terminal [See claim 1 for citations of the front / rear view images and the 360-image and additionally Vasavada Figures 1 – 3 (subfigures included) and 15 as well as Paragraphs 45 – 46 and 53 – 55 (transmitting images for stitching / composition), 68 – 73 (transmitting images for processing and final results to other devices), and 124 – 126] . See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Vasavada, Kozko, and Karpenko. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 – 6 and 12 – 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 is taken as the representative claim as claim 12 is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 2. Dependent claim 2 when taken as a whole recites a novel use of neural networks in image processing in which the neural network generates multiple copies of a front / rear facing view to have the copies / viewpoints be used to form ultra-wide angle images in which the training crosses using front / rear images in which is not performed in the cited references as the neural network performs stitching to form the 360 degree image and not the claimed use . Claims 3 – 6 and 13 – 16 depend from Objected to claims 2 and 12 respectively and thus are similarly Objected to as indicating Allowable Subject Matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5684 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT IFP . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Czekaj can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-7327 . 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. /TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487