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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 21-22, 25, 28-29, 31, 34-35, and 38 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. Regarding claims 21-22 and 25, the limitation “the ostomy appliance” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this is the same or different than “the ostomy apparatus” of claim 19, from which these claims depend. For examination purposes, “the ostomy appliance” is interpreted as “the ostomy apparatus.” Regarding claims 28-29 and 31, the limitation “the ostomy appliance” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this is the same or different than “the ostomy apparatus” of claim 26, from which these claims depend. For examination purposes, “the ostomy appliance” is interpreted as “the ostomy apparatus.” Regarding claims 34-35 and 38, the limitation “the ostomy appliance” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this is the same or different than “the ostomy apparatus” of claim 32, from which these claims depend. For examination purposes, “the ostomy appliance” is interpreted as “the ostomy apparatus.” 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. Claim(s) 26 -29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Millot et al. (US 6,171,289) , disclosed in an IDS dated February 19, 2024 . Regarding claim 26, Millot discloses a method for processing a signal from an ostomy apparatus (see Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 30-33 ; cl. 3) , the method comprising: receiving, from the ostomy apparatus the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair 17, 18 (see Figs. 2-3; col. 3, lines 39-60) incorporated into an ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2-3) ; and at least one of: displaying information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal; generating an auditory indication based upon the received signal; or generating a vibratory indication based upon the received signal (see col. 3, lines 60-65) . Regarding claim 27, Millot further discloses the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation absorbed by the ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2, 3, positions of electrode pairs allow for detection from a radial direction). Regarding claim 28, Millot further discloses the signal corresponds to a degree of ostomy leakage of the ostomy appliance (see col. 2, lines 37-46) . Regarding claim 29, Millot further discloses the degree of ostomy leakage is in a range from no leakage to full saturation around a sensor of the ostomy appliance (see Figs. 2-3, col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 4, lines 20-25) . Regarding claim 31, Millot further discloses the signal further comprises at least one of a usage statistic or a status for the ostomy appliance (see col. 1, lines 63-66; col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 2, lines 65-67, status showing that patient needs to take action) . 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. 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. Claim(s) 19 -25, 30, and 32-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millot et al. (US 6,171,289) in view of Marsiquet et al. ( WO 2013/114273 ) . The Marsiquet citations below are to the English translation provided with this office action. Regarding claim 19, Millot discloses a computing device configured to receive notifications from an ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2-4) , the computing device comprising: at least one processor (see Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 30-33 ; cl. 3) and memory comprising instructions that (see col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 4, lines 45-59, comparing to a predetermined threshold value would require a memory with instructions about the comparison/calculation) , when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to: receive a signal from the ostomy apparatus (see Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 25-33) , the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair 17, 18 (see Figs. 2-3; col. 3, lines 39-60 ) incorporated into the ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2-3 ). Millot does not disclose a display; and the computing device display ing , on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal. Marsiquet discloses a computing device configured to received notifications from an absorbent in the form of a wound dressing (Abstract) , which is comparable to an ostomy apparatus in that it is also considered with absorption of fluids from the body , and further includes at least one electrode pair to detect moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3 ), the computing device comprising a display (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 , display device ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ) and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the absorbent based upon a received signal (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ) , the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair incorporated into the absorbent to determine moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3 ; page 5, par. 4-5 ) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and therefore have the device of Millot further include the improvement of including a display; and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal, as disclosed by Marsiquet, with the results of such communication of information via the display being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 20, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 19 and Millot further discloses the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation absorbed by the ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2, 3, positions of electrode pairs allow for detection from a radial direction). Regarding claim 21, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 19 and Millot further discloses the signal corresponds to a degree of ostomy leakage of the ostomy appliance (see col. 2, lines 37-46) . Regarding claim 22, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 21 and Millot further discloses the degree of ostomy leakage is in a range from no leakage to full saturation around a sensor of the ostomy appliance (see Figs. 2-3, col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 4, lines 20-25) . Regarding claim 23, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 19 and Millot further discloses the computing device comprising at least one of: generating an auditory indication; or generating a vibratory indication (see col. 3, lines 60-65) . Regarding claim 24, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 19 and while Millot discloses the at least one electrode pair comprises a first electrode pair and a second electrode pair (see Figs. 2-3), Millot and Marsiquet as described above do not disclose the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation direction associated with a change in impedance between the first electrode pair and the second electrode pair. Marsiquet discloses the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation direction associated with a change in impedance between two consecutive electrodes, for at least a plurality of the consecutive pairs of electrodes that covers an area of the absorbent, allowing for the level of saturation to be measured at each location, and showing a map of saturated zones (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11-page 9, par. 1). Consequently, the signal created that allows for the level of saturation would correspond to a moisture propagation direction due to that saturation associated with a change in impedance between the first electrode pair and the second electrode pair. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the signal as disclosed by Marsiquet in order to determine more information about the degree of hydration/saturation of the ostomy apparatus, therefore helping in determining whether the adhesive of the ostomy apparatus is insufficient for satisfactory securing and sealing of the apparatus (see Millot; col. 2, lines 44-46 connecting adhesive for securing with degree of hydration/saturation). Regarding claim 2 5 , Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 19 and Millot further discloses the signal further comprises at least one of a usage statistic or a status for the ostomy appliance (see col. 1, lines 63-66; col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 2, lines 65-67, status showing that patient needs to take action) . Regarding claim 30, Millot discloses the at least one electrode pair comprises a first electrode pair and a second electrode pair (see Figs. 2-3), but as described above does not disclose the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation direction associated with a change in impedance between the first electrode pair and the second electrode pair. Marsiquet discloses the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation direction associated with a change in impedance between two consecutive electrodes, for at least a plurality of the consecutive pairs of electrodes that covers an area of the absorbent, allowing for the level of saturation to be measured at each location, and showing a map of saturated zones (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11-page 9, par. 1 ). Consequently, the signal created that allows for the level of saturation would correspond to a moisture propagation direction due to that saturation associated with a change in impedance between the first electrode pair and the second electrode pair. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the signal as disclosed by Marsiquet in order to determine more information about the degree of hydration/saturation of the ostomy apparatus, therefore helping in determining whether the adhesive of the ostomy apparatus is insufficient for satisfactory securing and sealing of the apparatus (see Millot; col. 2, lines 44-46 connecting adhesive for securing with degree of hydration/saturation). Regarding claim 32, Millot discloses a method, comprising: receiving a signal from an ostomy apparatus (see Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 25-33) , the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair incorporated into the ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2-3; col. 3, lines 39-60). Millot does not disclose displaying information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal. Marsiquet discloses a computing device configured to received notifications from an absorbent in the form of a wound dressing (Abstract), which is comparable to an ostomy apparatus in that it is also considered with absorption of fluids from the body and further includes at least one electrode pair to detect moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3 ), the computing device comprising a display (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ) and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the absorbent based upon a received signal (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ), the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair incorporated into the absorbent to determine moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and therefore have the device of Millot further include the improvement of including a display; and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal, as disclosed by Marsiquet, with the results of such communication of information via the display being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 33, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 32 and Millot further discloses the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation absorbed by the ostomy apparatus (see Figs. 2, 3, positions of electrode pairs allow for detection from a radial direction). Regarding claim 34, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 32 and Millot further discloses the signal corresponds to a degree of ostomy leakage of the ostomy appliance (see col. 2, lines 37-46) . Regarding claim 35, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 34 and Millot further discloses the degree of ostomy leakage is in a range from no leakage to full saturation around a sensor of the ostomy appliance (see Figs. 2-3, col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 4, lines 20-25) . Regarding claim 36, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 32 and Millot further discloses the method comprising at least one of: generating an auditory indication; or generating a vibratory indication (see col. 3, lines 60-65) . Regarding claim 37, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 32 and while Millot discloses the at least one electrode pair comprises a first electrode pair and a second electrode pair (see Figs. 2-3), Millot and Marsiquet as described above do not disclose the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation direction associated with a change in impedance between the first electrode pair and the second electrode pair. Marsiquet discloses the signal corresponds to a moisture propagation direction associated with a change in impedance between two consecutive electrodes, for at least a plurality of the consecutive pairs of electrodes that covers an area of the absorbent, allowing for the level of saturation to be measured at each location, and showing a map of saturated zones (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11-page 9, par. 1). Consequently, the signal created that allows for the level of saturation would correspond to a moisture propagation direction due to that saturation associated with a change in impedance between the first electrode pair and the second electrode pair. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the signal as disclosed by Marsiquet in order to determine more information about the degree of hydration/saturation of the ostomy apparatus, therefore helping in determining whether the adhesive of the ostomy apparatus is insufficient for satisfactory securing and sealing of the apparatus (see Millot; col. 2, lines 44-46 connecting adhesive for securing with degree of hydration/saturation). Regarding claim 38, Millot and Marsiquet disclose the limitations of claim 32 and Millot further discloses the signal further comprises at least one of a usage statistic or a status for the ostomy appliance (see col. 1, lines 63-66; col. 2, lines 37-46; col. 2, lines 65-67, status showing that patient needs to take action) . Double Patenting The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 19- 25, 30, and 32-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 6-7, or 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 890, 219, hereinafter ‘219, in view of Marsiquet . Regarding claim 19, claim 1 of ‘219 disclose substantially all limitations required by claim 19 of the current application except, a display; and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal. Marsiquet discloses a computing device configured to received notifications from an absorbent in the form of a wound dressing (Abstract), which is comparable to an ostomy apparatus in that it is also considered with absorption of fluids from the body and further includes at least one electrode pair to detect moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3 ), the computing device comprising a display (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ) and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the absorbent based upon a received signal (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ), the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair incorporated into the absorbent to determine moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and therefore have the device of Millot further include the improvement of including a display; and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal, as disclosed by Marsiquet, with the results of such communication of information via the display being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 20-25, the following claims of ‘219 disclose the additional limitations required by claims 20-25 of the current application: Current application 20 21 22 23 24 25 Claims of ‘219 1 6 6 7 17 6 Regarding claim 30, claim 17 of ‘219 disclose substantially all limitations required by claim 30 of the current application except, at least one of: displaying information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal; generating an auditory indication based upon the received signal; or generating a vibratory indication based upon the received signal. Marsiquet discloses a computing device configured to received notifications from an absorbent in the form of a wound dressing (Abstract), which is comparable to an ostomy apparatus in that it is also considered with absorption of fluids from the body and further includes at least one electrode pair to detect moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3 ), the computing device comprising a display (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ) and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the absorbent based upon a received signal (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ), the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair incorporated into the absorbent to determine moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and therefore have the device of Millot further include the improvement of including a display; and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal, as disclosed by Marsiquet, with the results of such communication of information via the display being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 32, claim 1 of ‘219 disclose substantially all limitations required by claim 32 of the current application except, displaying information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal. Marsiquet discloses a computing device configured to received notifications from an absorbent in the form of a wound dressing (Abstract), which is comparable to an ostomy apparatus in that it is also considered with absorption of fluids from the body and further includes at least one electrode pair to detect moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3 ), the computing device comprising a display (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ) and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the absorbent based upon a received signal (see Fig. 1, screen 31, page 6 , par. 7 ; page 5 , par. 6 ; page 8 , par. 1 1 ), the signal corresponding to a change in impedance of at least one electrode pair incorporated into the absorbent to determine moisture level (see page 3, par. 5- page 4, par. 3; page 5, par. 4-5; page 8, par. 11 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and therefore have the device of Millot further include the improvement of including a display; and the computing device displaying, on the display, information about the ostomy apparatus based upon the received signal, as disclosed by Marsiquet, with the results of such communication of information via the display being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 33-38, the following claims of ‘219 disclose the additional limitations required by claims 33-38 of the current application: Current application 33 34 35 36 37 38 Claims of ‘219 1 6 6 7 17 6 Claims 26-29 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of ‘219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Regarding claims 26-31, the following claims of ‘219 disclose the additional limitations required by claims 26-31 of the current application: Current application 26 27 28 29 31 Claims of ‘219 7 7 7 7 7 Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marsiquet et al. (US 2015/0018792), which is the US filing of Marsiquet used in the rejections above and while being clearer in language than the one above, it lacks the 102(a)(1) date of the above Marsiquet. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4665 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 - 5:00 PST M-F . 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 REBECCA E EISENBERG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5879 . 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. /ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781