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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because there is nothing in the disclosure or claim language to limit the interpretation of the claimed limitations as excluding transitory signals, therefor the claims can be interpreted as being drawn towards a signal per se. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claim 1, the limitation ‘fixed device’ is not interpreted as invoking a 112(f) means plus function interpretation, given that the claim language supports the limitation so that the three-pronged test is failed in that the ‘means’ term is not clearly modified by functional language (fails prong B) and that additional structure is recited in the claimed circuitry components ( fails prong C) . In claim 1, ‘mobile device…configured to estimate a position based on the notification information’. The generic placeholder is the term ‘device’ while the function is the ‘ estimate a position based on the notification information ’ processing. Note the device for position estimation at Figures 3 and 11 is shown as a black box unit and lacks specific structural disclosure to one of skill in the art, additionally there is no processor/computer and algorithm combination disclosed to perform the functional language which modifies the generic structural element. In claim 1, ‘a m aster device ’ and ‘a slave device’ are not interpreted as invoking 112(f) means plus function interpretations as they are designations of ‘fixed device’ within the communication environment [see position of ‘fixe d device’ above] . Claim 5 inherits claim 1, and additionally recites , a ‘mobile device to estimate a position based on the notification information’. The generic placeholder is the term ‘device’ while the function is the ‘estimate a position based on the notification information’ processing. Note the device for position estimation at Figures 3 and 11 is shown as a black box unit and lacks specific structural disclosure to one of skill in the art, additionally there is no processor/computer and algorithm combination disclosed to perform the functional language which modifies the generic structural element. In claim 9, ‘in-area devices’ not interpreted as invoking 112(f) means plus function interpretations as they a gain designations of ‘fixed devices’ within the communication environment [see position of ‘fixed devices’ above] . In claim 11 , ‘mobile device…configured to estimate a position based on the notification information’. The generic placeholder is the term ‘device’ while the function is the ‘estimate a position based on the notification information’ processing. Note the device for position estimation at Figures 3 and 11 is shown as a black box unit and lacks specific structural disclosure to one of skill in the art, additionally there is no processor/computer and algorithm combination disclosed to perform the functional language which modifies the generic structural element. In claim 11 , the individual recitations of ‘a m aster device’ and ‘a slave device’ are not interpreted as additionally invoking 112(f) means plus function interpretations as they are designations of the ‘fixed device’ denoted in the preamble. C laim 12, recites the limitations of ‘generating’ and ‘transmitting’ by master/fixed ‘device’. The generic placeholder is the term ‘device’ while the function is the ‘generating’ and ‘transmitting’ processing. Note the device for generating and transmitting at Figures 2 and 6 is shown as a black box unit and lacks specific structural disclosure to one of skill in the art, additionally there is no processor/computer and algorithm combination disclosed to perform the functional language which modifies the generic structural element. Claim 12 recites the limitations ‘receiving’, ‘selecting’, ‘measuring’ and ‘estimating’ by the ‘mobile device’. The generic placeholder is the term ‘device’ while the function is the ‘receiving’, ‘selecting’, ‘measuring’ and ‘estimating’ processing. Note the device for position estimation at Figures 3 and 11 is shown as a black box unit and lacks specific structural disclosure to one of skill in the art, additionally there is no processor/computer and algorithm combination disclosed to perform the functional language which modifies the generic structural element. In claim 13, the limitation ‘mobile device’ is not interpreted as invoking a 112(f) means plus function interpretation, given that the claim language supports the limitation so that the three-pronged test is failed in that the ‘means’ term is not clearly modified by functional language (fails prong B) and that additional structure is recited in the claimed circuitry components (fails prong C). In claim 13, the limitation ‘master device’ and ‘fixed device’ are not interpreted as invoking a 112(f) means plus function interpretation, given that the claim language supports the limitation so that the three-pronged test is failed in that the ‘means’ term is not clearly modified by functional language (fails prong B). In claim 15, the limitation ‘master device’ and ‘fixed device’ are not interpreted as invoking a 112(f) means plus function interpretation, given that the claim language supports the limitation so that the three-pronged test is failed in that the ‘means’ term is not clearly modified by functional language (fails prong B). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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. Claim s 1-12 and 14 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 5 incorporates claim 1, and then recites ‘a mobile device’. However, ‘a mobile device’ is already claimed in claim 1, the limitation in claim 5 is either redundant or creates antecedent confusion between the mobile device elements, and requires correction. Claim 10 is recites a ‘a control circuit’, setting the scope of the claim as a ‘machine claim’, however, there is no recitation of structure within the claim. There are no claim limitations towards the composition or structure of the machine, only the recitation of functions performed. As the stated ‘machine’ claim only recites functional ‘method’ composition, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 14 is recites a ‘a control circuit’, setting the scope of the claim as a ‘machine claim’, however, there is no recitation of structure within the claim. There are no claim limitations towards the composition or structure of the machine, only the recitation of functions performed. As the stated ‘machine’ claim only recites functional ‘method’ composition, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-12. Claim limitation “ mobile device…configured to estimate a position based on the notification information ” in claim 1, “mobile device to estimate a position based on the notification information” in claim 5, “mobile device…configured to estimate a position based on the notification information” in claim 11, “‘generating’ and ‘transmitting’ by master/fixed ‘device’” in claim 12, “‘receiving’, ‘selecting’, ‘measuring’ and ‘estimating’ by the ‘mobile device’” in claim 12 ; invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The above noted limitations are not supported in disclosure outside of representation as black box units and through recitation of the function without disclosure of sufficient structure to perform the function limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are 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. Claim limitation “mobile device…configured to estimate a position based on the notification information” in claim 1, “mobile device to estimate a position based on the notification information” in claim 5, “mobile device…configured to estimate a position based on the notification information” in claim 11, “‘generating’ and ‘transmitting’ by master/fixed ‘device’” in claim 12, “‘receiving’, ‘selecting’, ‘measuring’ and ‘estimating’ by the ‘mobile device’” in claim 12; invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no disclosure provided to disclose sufficient or specific structure to one of skill in the art as to how these limitations are meant to be performed or these modules to function. Per MPEP 2163.03 “ If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. ”. As such the noted limitations fail to meet the written description requirement by requiring a 112(f) interpretation of the components while failing to provide a disclosure that would limit the design in a way that does not cover all ways of performing the function. Please note: The claims and specifically the noted limitations that are invoking 112(f) have been analyzed and are interpreted to meet the 101 Enablement requirements. Through the consideration of Wands factors (such as state of the prior art (device position determinations), level of one of ordinary skill, level of predictability in the art (indication information transmission), and existence of working examples and the amount of direction provided by the inventor (ie the distance calculating to apply to the position estimation)) the Examiner interprets that undue experimentation would not be required and that the disclosure of design is sufficiently enabled to meet the requirements under USC 112(a). 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. 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. Claim s 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunehara (herein after Tsu)(US Pub 20030050079, see IDS) in view of Wang (US Pub 20110221635) and Hsieh (US Pub 20090296866) . Re claim 13, Tsu discloses a mobile device comprising: communication circuitry to receive (Fig 1 el 100 – radio handset, Par 30-31; Fig 9 el 11, Par 92-93) , from a device that is one of a plurality of devices belonging to any of a plurality of areas and is a representative of the area (Fig 1 el 101-105 base station elements; Par 30-31) , a signal including notification information including position information (Fig 1 el 101-105 base station elements; Par 30-31) ; fixed device selection circuitry to select the fixed device (Fig 2 el 700, 703 – base station selection further detailed in Fig 4; Par 35-36, 40, 50 -determinations made of which base station to select) for use in position estimation from among the plurality of fixed devices based on the notification information (Fig 2 el 700 , 703 – base station selection further detailed in Fig 4; Par 35-36, 40, 50 -determinations made of which base station to select ) ; and position estimation circuitry to measure a distance from the fixed device selected (Fig 2 el 702, Fig 4 el 302, Par 31, 46-48, 50) , and estimate a position of the mobile device using a result of measurement of the distance and the position information included in the notification information (Fig 2 input to el 704 from el 305 of Fig 4; Par 36, 50-52) ; however, Tsu fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the device is a master device ; and further (2) to receive from a master device that is one of a plurality of devices belonging to any of a plurality of areas and is a representative of the area, a signal including notification information including position information of the plurality of devices installed in the area ; and (3) wherein the plurality of devices comprises fixed devices . Regarding items (1) and (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses (1) wherein the device is a master device (Par 32-33, 35 , 42 ); and further (2) to receive from a master device that is one of a plurality of devices belonging to any of a plurality of areas (Fig 2, 12; Par 99, 200) and is a representative of the area (Par 75-80 – master broadcasts relative position information/location reference set to the user device) , a signal including notification information including position information of the plurality of devices installed in the area (Par 75-80 – master broadcasts relative position information/location reference set to the user device) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Tsu in order to incorporate the master device communication of Wang based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way , in this instance the use of a master device to perform configuration communications with the UE allows for a reduced overhead and bandwidth consumption of the given environment given that each slave device is not required to process and perform communication thereby improving the environmental capacity , while further improving quality and efficiency in the configuration communication and thereby improving the accuracy of positional determination through the communication of known data relative to the master unit . Regarding item (3) above, this design is however disclosed by Hsieh. Hsieh discloses (3) wherein the plurality of devices comprises fixed devices (Par 13, 26, 32, 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Tsu in order to incorporate the fixed design of the devices of Hsieh based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way , in this instance by using fixed devices the relative distance and positioning relationships between each device can be established and then communicated, improving the efficiency and accuracy of positional determinations for mobile devices within the environment while further reducing the need for recalibration . Re claims 14 and 15, Tsu discloses a control circuit that controls a mobile device, and the associated storage medium storing a program for controlling a mobile device, the control circuit/ program causing the mobile device to execute: Receiving (Fig 1 el 100 – radio handset, Par 30-31; Fig 9 el 11, Par 92-93) , from a device that is one of a plurality of devices belonging to any of a plurality of areas and is a representative of the area (Fig 1 el 101-105 base station elements; Par 30-31) , a signal including notification information including position information (Fig 1 el 101-105 base station elements; Par 30-31) ; selecting the device for use in position estimation from among the plurality of devices based on the notification information (Fig 2 el 700, 703 – base station selection further detailed in Fig 4; Par 35-36, 40, 50 -determinations made of which base station to select) ; measuring a distance from the device selected (Fig 2 el 702, Fig 4 el 302, Par 31, 46-48, 50) ; and estimating a position of the mobile device using a result of measurement of the distance and the position information included in the notification information (Fig 2 input to el 704 from el 305 of Fig 4; Par 36, 50-52); however, Tsu fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the device is a master device; and further (2) receiving from a master device that is one of a plurality of devices belonging to any of a plurality of areas and is a representative of the area, a signal including notification information including position information of the plurality of devices installed in the area ; and (3) wherein the plurality of devices comprises fixed devices. Regarding items (1) and (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses (1) wherein the device is a master device (Par 32-33, 35, 42); and further (2) receiving from a master device that is one of a plurality of devices belonging to any of a plurality of areas (Fig 2, 12; Par 99, 200) and is a representative of the area (Par 75-80 – master broadcasts relative position information/location reference set to the user device) , a signal including notification information including position information of the plurality of devices installed in the area (Par 75-80 – master broadcasts relative position information/location reference set to the user device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Tsu in order to incorporate the master device communication of Wang based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the use of a master device to perform configuration communications with the UE allows for a reduced overhead and bandwidth consumption of the given environment given that each slave device is not required to process and perform communication thereby improving the environmental capacity, while further improving quality and efficiency in the configuration communication and thereby improving the accuracy of positional determination through the communication of known data relative to the master unit. Regarding item (3) above, this design is however disclosed by Hsieh. Hsieh discloses (3) wherein the plurality of devices comprises fixed devices (Par 13, 26, 32, 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Tsu in order to incorporate the fixed design of the devices of Hsieh based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance by using fixed devices the relative distance and positioning relationships between each device can be established and then communicated, improving the efficiency and accuracy of positional determinations for mobile devices within the environment while further reducing the need for recalibration. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claim 10 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specific master device transmission considerations specifically considering the timing of transmissions from other master devices from other areas . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1848 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hannah S. Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9018 . 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. /MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631