DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 09/10/2025. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 16 and 18-20 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-20 are 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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 09/10/2025 and are acceptable, and therefore the previous objection to the drawing is withdrawn.
Specification
The previous objection to the disclosure is withdrawn in view of applicant’s remark.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection to claims 2, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view applicant’s remark.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “activating the brake lights based on a detected acceleration of another vehicle” which is not described in the originally filed specification, therefore considered to be new matter.
Applicant indicated the subject matter is disclosed in ¶35 of the originally filed specification, however, upon further review, the disclosure merely describes a way for the accelerometer do determine “spacing between the ear of that vehicle and the front of the trailing vehicle” and simply knowing the “spacing” cannot determine acceleration of another vehicle, as the spacing can change based on factor other than the acceleration of the another vehicle, such as the vehicle accelerating or decelerating.
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 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “armband light bar” which renders the claim indefinite, as there is lack of antecedent basis for said term.
For the purpose of this office action, the examiner is interpreting the claim as “each armband comprise light emitting devices of multiple color”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey in view of Machine Translation of KR102314413B1 hereinafter “Kim” in view of US2004/0227646A1 hereinafter “Henry”
Regarding claims 1, Garvey discloses a vehicle safety lighting system (¶57L2: wireless signal light system) comprising:
a wireless control device (¶57L1-2: wireless transmitter of the wireless signal light system) comprising
a controller (¶58L4-5: a signal generator) and wireless transceiver (¶58L5:a wireless communication chip), the wireless control device configured to
receive brake, left and right turn signals from a vehicle (¶87L1-2: an automotive light signal is transmitted from a vehicle via a wireless radio transmission); and
a left and right article (¶81L8: left and right gloves) for an operator of the vehicle (86L1-4: an article worn by a human operator of a vehicle),
each article comprising a Light Emitting Array (LEA) (¶81L12-14: the gloves can have yellow or orange left and right turn signal LEDs) and a wireless transceiver (¶81L3: a wireless receiver unit); wherein
each article is configured to receive a control signal from the wireless control device (¶88L1-3: the automotive light signal is wirelessly received at an article worn by a human operator of the vehicle), the control signal causing the LEA of the armband to output a visual signal (¶89L1-3: an automotive signal light one the article worn by the human operator is actuated, based on the automotive light signal sent from the vehicle) coordinated with the brake, left or right turn signals of the vehicle. (¶81L12-14: the gloves can have yellow or orange left and right turn signal LED)
Although Garvey does not explicitly disclose “left and right armbands” however, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left gloves by Garvey into a left/right hand armband as disclosed in Fig.1 of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the armband disclosed by Kim has a larger display surface, allowing more safety information to be display.
Garvey in view of Kim hereinafter “Garvey/Kim” does not disclose:
each armband is configured to be designated by a user as left or right
Henry disclose a vehicle safety system used to enhance the safety of motorist wherein the remote unit for right/left turn signal comprises a identification switch (¶129L4: identification switch) wherein said identification switch allows the user to designate the unit as left or right unit. (¶1341-14:identification switch allows a remote unit to be designated as a left or right remote unit)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim to incorporate the identification switch as disclosed by Henry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the unit to function either as a left or right turn signal unit without the need to manufacture them differently, thus reducing manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 4, Garvey/Kim in view of Henry hereinafter “Garvey/Kim/Henry” discloses in Garvey the system of claim 1, wherein
each armband light bar comprises light emitting devices of multiple colors. (¶71L35-38: adjust the function of the LED on all of the equipment such as color of LEDs) (Note: since the color of the LED can be adjusted, it is inherently disclosed the LED device has multiple colors)
Regarding claim 5, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless control device comprises
a memory (¶96L5-6: a nonvolatile data storage medium) to store a Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) for each armband. (¶101L6: module identification codes)
Regarding claim 6, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 5, wherein
the UUID for each armband includes a designation of left or right for the corresponding armband. (¶101L6: module identification codes) (Note: since each article has a module identification code, it is inherently disclosed the left/right gloves for example would have a unique identification code)
Regarding claim 8, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless control device comprises
a memory (¶96L5-6: a nonvolatile data storage medium) to store a unique pair identifier for a pair of armbands previously connected to the wireless control device. (¶101L10-11: stored in each receiver associated with a given article)
Regarding claim 9, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 1, further comprising
a smartphone application, the application comprising a user interface to facilitate pairing of the armbands with the wireless control device. (¶941-3: a user interface exposed by the application enables the rider to assign each indicator signal of the vehicle to specific article)
Regarding claim 10, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 9, wherein
the user interface of the application is configured to receive designation of one of the armbands as the right or left armband. (¶941-3: a user interface exposed by the application enables the rider to assign each indicator signal of the vehicle to specific article)
Regarding claims 11, Garvey discloses a method of vehicle safety lighting, the method comprising:
receiving, via a wireless control device (¶57L1-2: wireless transmitter of the wireless signal light system), brake, left and right turn signals from a vehicle,
the wireless control device comprising
a controller (¶58L4-5: a signal generator) and wireless transceiver (¶58L5:a wireless communication chip);
transmitting, via the wireless control device, a control signal (¶87L1-2: an automotive light signal is transmitted from a vehicle via a wireless radio transmission) to each of left and right armbands (¶81L8: left and right gloves) worn by an operator of the vehicle (86L1-4: an article worn by a human operator of a vehicle),,
each armband comprising
a Light Emitting Array (LEA) (¶81L12-14: the gloves can have yellow or orange left and right turn signal LEDs) and a wireless transceiver (¶81L3: a wireless receiver unit); and
outputting, based on the control signal, a visual signal with the LEAs (¶89L1-3: an automotive signal light one the article worn by the human operator is actuated, based on the automotive light signal sent from the vehicle), wherein the visual signal is coordinated with the brake, left or right turn signals of the vehicle. (¶81L12-14: the gloves can have yellow or orange left and right turn signal LED)
Although Garvey does not explicitly disclose “left and right armbands” however, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left gloves by Garvey into a left/right hand armband as disclosed in Fig.1 of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the armband disclosed by Kim has a larger display surface, allowing more safety information to be display.
Garvey/Kim does not disclose:
each armband is configured to be designated by a user as left or right
Henry disclose a vehicle safety system used to enhance the safety of motorist wherein the remote unit for right/left turn signal comprises a identification switch (¶129L4: identification switch) wherein said identification switch allows the user to designate the unit as left or right unit. (¶1341-14:identification switch allows a remote unit to be designated as a left or right remote unit)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim to incorporate the identification switch as disclosed by Henry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the unit to function either as a left or right turn signal unit without the need to manufacture them differently, thus reducing manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 12, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the method of claim 11, wherein
the wireless control device is a Bluetooth® control device. (¶57L2-3: wireless transmitter may utilize Bluetooth)
Regarding claim 14, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the method of claim 11, wherein
each armband identifies itself to the wireless control device with a Universal Unique Identifier (UUID). (¶101L6: module identification codes) (Note: since each article has a module identification code, it is inherently disclosed the left/right gloves for example would have a unique identification code)
Regarding claim 15, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the method of claim 14, wherein the UUID for each armband includes a designation of left or right for the corresponding armband. (¶101L6: module identification codes) (Note: since each article has a module identification code, it is inherently disclosed the left/right gloves for example would have a unique identification code)
Regarding claim 16, Garvey/Kim discloses in Garvey the method of claim 11, further comprising,
storing, via the wireless control device, a left or right designation for each armband paired with the wireless control device. (Garvey ¶101L10-11: stored in each receiver associated with a given article)
Garvey/Kim does not expclitly disclose:
activating the brake visual signal based on detection of vehicle deceleration above a brake light activation threshold.
Henry disclose a vehicle safety system used to enhance the safety of motorist wherein the system activating the brake visual signal based on detection of vehicle deceleration above a brake light activation threshold. (¶64L1-10: deceleration detection circuit measures the inertial force, which are compared to the force threshold; if the inertial forces are greater than the deceleration force threshold then the controller produce output that motorcycle is decelerating rapidly; ¶117L1-14: warning signal is produced when vehicle decelerates)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim to deceleration detection cicurit as disclosed by Henry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the unit to automatically detect rapid deceleration and activating warning light without user input.
Regarding claim 17, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the method of claim 11, further comprising,
storing, via the wireless control device a unique pair identifier for a pair of armbands previously connected to the wireless control device. (¶101L10-11: stored in each receiver associated with a given article)
Regarding claims 20, Garvey discloses a vehicle safety lighting system (¶57L2: wireless signal light system) comprising:
a Bluetooth® control device (¶57L1-2: wireless transmitter of the wireless signal light system) comprising
a controller (¶58L4-5: a signal generator) and Bluetooth® wireless transceiver (¶58L5:a wireless communication chip; ¶57L2-3: wireless transmitter may utilize Bluetooth), the Bluetooth® control device configured
to receive brake, left and right turn signals from a vehicle (¶87L1-2: an automotive light signal is transmitted from a vehicle via a wireless radio transmitter); and
clothing (¶81L8: left and right gloves) for an operator of the vehicle (86L1-4: an article worn by a human operator of a vehicle), the clothing comprising
a Light Emitting Array (LEA) (¶81L12-14: the gloves can have yellow or orange left and right turn signal LEDs) and a Bluetooth® wireless transceiver (¶81L3: a wireless receiver unit; ¶57L2-3: wireless transmitter may utilize Bluetooth) wherein
the LEA is configured to receive a control signal from the Bluetooth® wireless control device (¶88L1-3: the automotive light signal is wirelessly received at an article worn by a human operator of the vehicle), the control signal causing the LEA to output a visual signal (¶89L1-3: an automotive signal light one the article worn by the human operator is actuated, based on the automotive light signal sent from the vehicle) coordinated with the brake, left or right turn signals of the vehicle. (¶81L12-14: the gloves can have yellow or orange left and right turn signal LED)
Although Garvey does not explicitly disclose “left and right armbands” however, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left gloves by Garvey into a left/right hand armband as disclosed in Fig.1 of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the armband disclosed by Kim has a larger display surface, allowing more safety information to be display.
Garvey/Kim does not disclose:
each armband is configured to be designated by a user as left or right
Henry disclose a vehicle safety system used to enhance the safety of motorist wherein the remote unit for right/left turn signal comprises a identification switch (¶129L4: identification switch) wherein said identification switch allows the user to designate the unit as left or right unit. (¶1341-14:identification switch allows a remote unit to be designated as a left or right remote unit)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim to incorporate the identification switch as disclosed by Henry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the unit to function either as a left or right turn signal unit without the need to manufacture them differently, thus reducing manufacturing cost.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey/Kim/Henry in view of US2025/0194745A1 hereinafter “Khan”
Regarding claim 2, Gary/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 1, wherein
the wireless control device is a Bluetooth® control device.(¶57L2-3: wireless transmitter may utilize Bluetooth)
Gary/Kim/Henry does not explicitly disclose:
each armband is configured to identify itself as left or right based on a unique Bluetooth® Low Energy (BLE) advertising name or Universal Unique Identifier (UUID).
Khan discloses a Bluetooth device with left and right device wherein
each device is configured to identify itself as left or right based on a unique Bluetooth® Low Energy (BLE) advertising name or Universal Unique Identifier (UUID). (¶63L16-20: the insoles advertise itself with a unique Bluetooth name (Left/Right Insole) and an identifier (e.g., a 16-bit long service Universally Unique Identifier (UUID)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim/Henry to incorporate the identification and advertising name as disclosed by Khan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the attributes help establish the proper connections or communication channel between the peripheral and the application. (¶63L16-20)
Regarding claim 7, Gary/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless control device comprises
a memory (¶96L5-6: a nonvolatile data storage medium) to store a left or right designation for each armband paired with the wireless control device. (¶101L10-11: stored in each receiver associated with a given article)
Gary/Kim/Henry does not explicitly disclose:
each armband is prevented from pairing with the system before the arm band has been designated as left or right.
Khan discloses a Bluetooth device with left and right device wherein
each device is configured to identify itself as left or right based on a unique Bluetooth® Low Energy (BLE) advertising name or Universal Unique Identifier (UUID). (¶63L16-20: the insoles advertise itself with a unique Bluetooth name (Left/Right Insole) and an identifier (e.g., a 16-bit long service Universally Unique Identifier (UUID)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim/Henry to incorporate the identification and advertising name as disclosed by Khan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the attributes help establish the proper connections or communication channel between the peripheral and the application. (¶63L16-20)
Gary/Kim/Henry in view of Khan does not expclitly disclose:
each armband is prevented from pairing with the system before the arm band has been designated as left or right.
However, since Khan discloses that the peripheral broadcasts unique Bluetooth name (left/right insole), it is obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art that in order for the name to be broadcasted, a previous designation must occur, and without said designation of left/right insole, the pairing process cannot be completed, as the insole would not be able to broadcast said Bluetooth name.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary/Kim/Henry in view of US2024/0351669 hereinafter “Whitmyer” and US2025/0169755 hereinafter “Fu”
Regarding claim 3, Gary/Kim/Henry discloses the system of claim 1,
Gary/Kim/Henry does not disclose:
the wireless control device is incorporated into a lightbar mounted on the vehicle.
Whitmyer discloses a light bar installed on a bicycle. (as shown in Fig.21)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the wireless control system disclosed by Gary/Kim/Henry to be part of the lightbar disclosed by Whitmyer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the lightbar will provide additional safety light for the cyclist, and the article worn by the rider will further increase visibility of the cyclist.
Gary/Kim/Henry in view of Whitmyer hereinafter “Gary/Kim/Henry/Whitmyer” does not expclitly disclose:
a unique pair ID is stored in the left and right armbands so that the system identifies the left and right armband as a pair.
Fu discloses a garment won by the user, wherein the garment includes:
a unique pair ID is stored in the left and right garment so that the system identifies the left and right garment as a pair. (¶47L1-15: each pair of garment may be loaded with a unique user ID (e.g., a UUID))
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the right/left armband as disclosed by Garvey/Kim/Henry/Whitmyer to incorporate the UUID as disclosed by Fu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the user to identify different pairs of garment easily.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey/Kim/Henry in view of Whitmyer.
Regarding claim 13, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses the method of claim 11,
Garvey/Kim/Henry does not disclose:
the wireless control device is incorporated into a lightbar mounted on the vehicle.
Whitmyer discloses a light bar installed on a bicycle. (as shown in Fig.21)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the wireless control system disclosed by Garvey/Kim/Henry to be part of the lightbar disclosed by Whitmyer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the lightbar will provide additional safety light for the cyclist, and the article worn by the rider will further increase visibility of the cyclist.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey/Kim/Henry in view of US2024/0349027A1 hereinafter “Anselm”
Regarding claim 18, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the method of claim 11,
Garvey/Kim/Henry does not disclose:
using radio signal strength (RSSI) to distinguish between armbands to be connected to the wireless control device and determining, based on RSSI received from a plurality of prospective armband sets, which set to pair.
Anselm discloses a commissioning of load control system wherein RSSI of beacon message is used to determine which devices are associated with which signal. (¶63L1-22: the device select fixture for configuration and/or control based on indication of signal strength. For example selecting fixture for configuration and/or control based on a determination that the optical signal was the highest signal strength)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize the RSSI commissioning method disclosed by Anselm to pair the wireless control system disclosed by Garvey/Kim/Henry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because RSSI are simple and effective way to provide real time monitoring, positioning and asset tracking.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey/Kim/Henry in view of US2025/0276684A1 hereinafter “Newman”
Regarding claim 19, Garvey/Kim/Henry discloses in Garvey the method of claim 11, further comprising,
controlling pairing of the armbands with the wireless control device via a smartphone application. (¶941-3: a user interface exposed by the application enables the rider to assign each indicator signal of the vehicle to specific article)
Garvey/Kim/Henry does not explicitly disclose:
activating the brake lights based on a detected acceleration of another vehicle.
Newman disclose a collision system wherein
activating the brake lights (¶211: the processor activates the brakes and other devices when collision hazard has risen to a high level) based on a detected acceleration of another vehicle. (¶113: processor notes sudden changes in velocity or acceleration of the other vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize the collision detection and control system disclosed by Newman in the wireless control system disclosed by Garvey/Kim/Henry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the system to automatically monitor imminent collision and activate corresponding system, which can occur faster than the reaction time of human driver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844