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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/414,040 filed on 1/16/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“actuatable layer 802” in line 6 of paragraph [0042] should be changed to “optical layer 804”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: in particular, “910”, “915(A)”, “915(B)”, “940”, “920(A)”-“920(J)”, “905”, “925”, “935”, “1004”, “1006(A)”, “1006(B)” are not shown in Figs. 9, 10.
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. 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. Applicant may delete the reference characters from the description instead of adding them to the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “1020(A)”-“1020(J)”, “1015(A)”, “1015(B)”, “1030”, “1040”, “1050”, “1025”, “1035” of Fig. 10.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), Applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over current claim 2 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/107,338 of Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”, “’338”).
An explanation along with the listing of claims 1 and 12 of the present application and current claim 2 of Yang is given below.
Instant claims: 18/414,040
Patent App. No. 18/107,338
1. An apparatus comprising a variable lens comprising:
an actuatable layer;
an optical layer; and
at least one actuator, wherein:
the optical layer includes a deformable polymer;
the actuatable layer has a surface profile that is configured to be adjustable using the at least one actuator; and
the optical layer is configured to deform when the at least one actuator actuates the actuatable layer.
2. An optical lens assembly, comprising:
a plurality of optical lenses aligned along an orthogonal axis of the optical lenses;
a tunable optical lens positioned between a first optical lens and a second optical lens of the plurality of optical lenses, the tunable optical lens comprising:
a flexible membrane;
a hard substrate positioned parallel to the flexible membrane:
a deformable material between the flexible membrane and the hard substrate: and
at least two thin film piezo actuators to adjust a profile of the flexible membrane, wherein an adjustment of the profile of the flexible membrane adjusts a focus distance of the optical lens assembly, wherein the optical lens assembly has a field of view (FOV) of more than 1oo degrees in a diagonal direction, an F number of more than 2 in a visible spectrum, an effective focal length of more than 2 mm, a total track length of r5 mm, and a back focal length of less than 1 mm.
wherein the
deformable material comprises at least one of a polymer, a
silicon compound, or a liquid lens.
Claim 2 of Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application. Here, the actuatable layer of instant claim 1 corresponds to the flexible membrane of claim 2 of ‘338, and the optical layer of instant claim 1 corresponds to the deformable material of claim 2 of ‘338, wherein the deformable material is configured to deform when at least one actuator actuates the flexible membrane so that its surface profile changes. It is noted that that the deformable material of claim 2 of ‘338 is an optical layer because the adjustment of the flexible membrane (and thus of the deformable material) adjusts a focus distance of the optical lens assembly.
Instant claims: 18/414,040
Patent App. No. 18/107,338
12. A system comprising a variable lens comprising:
an actuatable layer;
an optical layer; and
at least one actuator, wherein:
the optical layer includes a deformable polymer;
the actuatable layer has a surface profile that is configured to be adjustable using the at least one actuator; and
the optical layer is configured to deform when the at least one actuator actuates the actuatable layer.
2. An optical lens assembly, comprising:
a plurality of optical lenses aligned along an orthogonal axis of the optical lenses;
a tunable optical lens positioned between a first optical lens and a second optical lens of the plurality of optical lenses, the tunable optical lens comprising:
a flexible membrane;
a hard substrate positioned parallel to the flexible membrane:
a deformable material between the flexible membrane and the hard substrate: and
at least two thin film piezo actuators to adjust a profile of the flexible membrane, wherein an adjustment of the profile of the flexible membrane adjusts a focus distance of the optical lens assembly, wherein the optical lens assembly has a field of view (FOV) of more than 1oo degrees in a diagonal direction, an F number of more than 2 in a visible spectrum, an effective focal length of more than 2 mm, a total track length of r5 mm, and a back focal length of less than 1 mm, wherein the
deformable material comprises at least one of a polymer, a
silicon compound, or a liquid lens.
Claim 2 of Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 12 of the present application. Here, the actuatable layer of instant claim 12 corresponds to the flexible membrane of claim 2 of ‘338, and the optical layer of instant claim 12 corresponds to the deformable material of claim 2 of ‘338, wherein the deformable material is configured to deform when at least one actuator actuates the flexible membrane so that its surface profile changes. It is noted that that the deformable material of claim 2 of ‘338 is an optical layer because the adjustment of the flexible membrane (and thus of the deformable material) adjusts a focus distance of the optical lens assembly.
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 1-2, 5-7, 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2)(1) as being anticipated by Craen et al. (US 2021/0141126, hereinafter, “Craen”).
Regarding claim 1, Craen discloses an apparatus comprising a variable lens 1 (Fig. 2) comprising:
an actuatable layer 4 (Fig. 2, [0116], [0119]);
an optical layer 2 (Fig. 2, [0116]); and
at least one actuator 7, 8 (Fig. 2, [0116]), wherein:
the optical layer includes a deformable polymer ([0084]);
the actuatable layer has a surface profile that is configured to be adjustable using the at least one actuator ([0119]); and
the optical layer is configured to deform when the at least one actuator actuates the actuatable layer (Fig. 2, [0119]).
Regarding claim 2, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the at least one actuator comprises a piezoelectric actuator ([0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
adjusting the surface profile of the actuatable layer comprises deforming the optical layer (Fig. 2, [0116]. Here, deformation of layer 2 adjusts the profile of 4).
Regarding claim 6, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the variable lens is a camera lens for a camera that is configured to receive light from an external environment and to provide a camera signal ([0029], [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the variable lens is configured to provide the camera with at least one of an auto-focus, an optical zoom, or an optical image stabilization function ([0001]).
Regarding claim 12, Craen discloses a system comprising a variable lens 1 (Fig. 2) comprising:
an actuatable layer 4 (Fig. 2, [0116], [0119]);
an optical layer 2 (Fig. 2, [0116]); and
at least one actuator 7, 8 (Fig. 2, [0116]), wherein:
the optical layer includes a deformable polymer ([0084]);
the actuatable layer has a surface profile that is configured to be adjustable using the at least one actuator ([0119]); and
the optical layer is configured to deform when the at least one actuator actuates the actuatable layer (Fig. 2, [0119]).
Regarding claim 13, Craen discloses the system of claim 12:
wherein the variable lens comprises a camera lens for a camera ([0029]); and
further comprising a light detector of the camera that is configured to receive light that passes through the variable lens and output a camera signal ([0029]. Here, motion sensors receive light that passes through the variable lens and provide corresponding signals).
Regarding claim 14, Craen discloses the system of claim 13, wherein
the variable lens is configured to provide the camera with at least one of an auto-focus, an optical zoom, or an optical image stabilization function ([0001]).
Regarding claim 20, Craen discloses a method comprising:
actuating, by at least one actuator 7, 8 of a variable lens 1, an actuatable layer 4 of the variable lens, the variable lens comprising:
the actuatable layer 4 (Fig. 2, [0116], [0119]);
an optical layer 2 (Fig. 2, [0116]); and
the at least one actuator 7, 8 (Fig. 2, [0116]); wherein:
the optical layer 2 includes a deformable polymer ([0084]);
the actuatable layer has a surface profile that is configured to be adjustable using the at least one actuator ([0119]); and
the optical layer is configured to deform when the at least one actuator actuates the actuatable layer (Fig. 2, [0119]);
thereby causing the optical layer to refract light in a manner dependent on activity of the at least one actuator on the actuatable layer ([0014]).
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.
Claims 3-4, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craen in view of Craen et al. (US 2024/0184100, hereinafter, “Craen1”).
Regarding claim 3, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Craen does not disclose wherein the actuatable layer comprises a ring-shaped form factor defined by an outer radius and having an inner aperture defined by an inner radius.
Craen1 discloses a tunable lens 3 comprising a deformable optical lens layer 18, 19 being disposed between a transparent cover membrane 17 and a base transparent membrane 20 (Fig. 3, [0080]-[0081]). In one embodiment, the tunable lens may have a top structure 33 comprising a ring 32 and an inner aperture (Fig. 6, [0091]).
Both Craen and Craen1 disclose variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the variable lens assembly 1 comprises a ring-shaped top structure (i.e., an aperture in the actuatable layer 4), as taught by Craen1, for restraining the deformation of the actuatable layer 4 due to undesired thermal expansion of the optical layer 3 ([0092] in Craen1).
Regarding claim 4, Craen/Craen1 discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein
actuation of the actuatable layer causes a portion of the optical layer to protrude through the inner aperture of the actuatable layer (in the modified apparatus of Craen/Craen1, deformation of the optical layer 2 would cause the optical layer 2 to protrude through the inner aperture).
Regarding claim 11, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Craen does not disclose wherein a refractive index of the optical layer matches the refractive index of the actuatable layer.
Craen1 discloses a tunable lens 3 comprising a deformable optical lens layer 18, 19 being disposed between a transparent cover membrane 17 and a base transparent membrane 20 (Fig. 3, [0080]-[0081]). In one embodiment, the deformable lens layer and the transparent membrane 17 may have matching refractive index ([0022]).
Both Craen and Craen1 disclose variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the actuatable layer 4 has the same refractive index as the deformable lens layer 2, as taught by Craen1, for reducing reflections at the boundaries of the two layers ([0022] in Craen1).
Regarding claim 18, Craen discloses the system of claim 12.
Craen does not disclose wherein the actuatable layer comprises a ring-shaped form factor defined by an outer radius and having an inner aperture defined by an inner radius.
Craen1 discloses a tunable lens 3 comprising a deformable optical lens layer 18, 19 being disposed between a transparent cover membrane 17 and a base transparent membrane 20 (Fig. 3, [0080]-[0081]). In one embodiment, the tunable lens may have a top structure 33 comprising a ring 32 and an inner aperture (Fig. 6, [0091]).
Both Craen and Craen1 disclose variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the variable lens assembly 1 comprises a ring-shaped top structure (i.e., an aperture in the actuatable layer 4), as taught by Craen1, for restraining the deformation of the actuatable layer 4 due to undesired thermal expansion of the optical layer 3 ([0092] in Craen1).
Regarding claim 19, Craen/Craen1 discloses the system of claim 18, wherein
actuation of the actuatable layer causes a portion of the optical layer to protrude through the inner aperture of the actuatable layer (in the modified apparatus of Craen/Craen1, deformation of the optical layer 2 would cause the optical layer 2 to protrude through the inner aperture).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craen in view of Hua et al. (US 2011/0075257, hereinafter, “Hua”).
Regarding claim 10, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Craen does not disclose wherein the variable lens is a camera lens for a camera that is configured to receive images of a user's eye.
Hua discloses an optical display used in a head-mounted display (Fig, 1, [0085]). In one embodiment, a variable-focus gaze-contingent display is configured, where the user’s gaze (i.e., the user’s eye) is tracked and inputted to a liquid variable lens in a feedback scheme to obtain the current convergence of the user’s eye (Fig. 12, [0133]).
Both Craen and Hua disclose optical systems involving variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the variable lens assembly 1 is used with a camera receiving images of a user’s eye, as taught by Hua, for providing accurate rendering of real-time focus ([0133] in Hua).
Claims 8, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craen in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 10,634,824, hereinafter, “Ouderkirk”).
Regarding claim 8, Craen discloses the apparatus of claim 6.
Craen does not disclose a controller configured to receive the camera signal and to provide an external image signal based on the camera signal and to provide an augmented reality element signal; and
a display configured to show an augmented reality image element based on the augmented reality element signal and an external image based on the external image signal.
Ouderkirk discloses a HMD (Figs. 3A, 3B, col. 9, line 63 to col. 10, line 42). In one embodiment, the HMD may be used as a mixed reality system where an external image received by the camera 410 and an augmented reality image are superposed and shown on a display 440 (Fig. 4, col. 1, lines 40-56, col. 10, line 44 to col. 13, line 28).
Both Craen and Ouderkirk disclose variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the variable lens assembly 1 is used in a HMD so that external images and augmented reality images are shown on the display of the HMD, as taught by Ouderkirk, for adjusting the image plane location of the HMD (col. 1, lines 43-53 in Ouderkirk).
Regarding claim 15, Craen discloses the system of claim 13.
Craen does not disclose a controller configured to receive the camera signal and to provide an external image signal based on the camera signal and to provide an augmented reality element signal; and
a display configured to show an augmented reality image element based on the augmented reality element signal and an external image based on the external image signal.
Ouderkirk discloses a HMD (Figs. 3A, 3B, col. 9, line 63 to col. 10, line 42). In one embodiment, the HMD may be used as an mixed reality system where an external image received by the camera 410 and an augmented reality image are superposed and shown on a display 440 (Fig. 4, col. 1, lines 40-56, col. 10, line 44 to col. 13, line 28).
Both Craen and Ouderkirk disclose variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the variable lens assembly 1 is used in a HMD so that external images and augmented reality images are shown on the display of the HMD, as taught by Ouderkirk, for adjusting the image plane location of the HMD (col. 1, lines 43-53 in Ouderkirk).
Regarding claim 17, Craen discloses the system of claim 12.
Craen does not disclose a light emitter that is configured to emit light that is directed through the variable lens.
Ouderkirk discloses a HMD (Figs. 3A, 3B, col. 9, line 63 to col. 10, line 42). In one embodiment, light emitters in display 355 emit light that is directed through the variable lens 360 (Fig. 3B).
Both Craen and Ouderkirk disclose variable lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen so that the variable lens assembly 1 is used in a HMD so that a light emitter directs light through the variable lens, as taught by Ouderkirk, for adjusting an orientation from light emitted from the display such that it appears at desired focal distances from the user (col. 10, lines 34-36 in Ouderkirk).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craen, Ouderkirk, in view of McLeod (US 2008/0252736, hereinafter, “McLeod”).
Regarding claim 9, Craen/ Ouderkirk discloses the apparatus of claim 8.
Craen/Ouderkirk does not disclose at least one accelerometer that provides accelerometer signals to the controller to facilitate application of at least one of an auto-focus, an optical zoom, or an optical image stabilization function to at least one of the augmented reality element or the external image. In Ouderkirk, accelerometers are used as sensors to describe the position of the HMD.
McLeod discloses an image stabilization apparatus that may be used in a camera ([0042]). In McLeod, accelerometers are used to correct image data captured by a moving image capture device, i.e., for image stabilization ([0006]).
Both Craen and McLeod disclose optical assemblies using cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen/Ouerkirk so that the HMD of Ouderkirk that includes the variable lens assembly of Craen also includes at least one accelerometer, as taught by McLeod, for improving the quality of the captured external image ([0006] in McLeod).
Regarding claim 16, Craen/ Ouderkirk discloses the system of claim 15.
Craen/Ouderkirk does not disclose at least one accelerometer that provides accelerometer signals to the controller to facilitate application of at least one of an auto-focus, an optical zoom, or an optical image stabilization function to at least one of the augmented reality element or the external image. In Ouderkirk, accelerometers are used as sensors to describe the position of the HMD.
McLeod discloses an image stabilization apparatus that may be used in a camera ([0042]). In McLeod, accelerometers are used to correct image data captured by a moving image capture device, i.e., for image stabilization ([0006]).
Both Craen and McLeod disclose optical assemblies using cameras.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Craen/Ouderkirk so that the HMD of Ouderkirk that includes the variable lens assembly of Craen also includes at least one accelerometer, as taught by McLeod, for improving the quality of the captured external image the ([0006] in McLeod).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872