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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the objection of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
The examiner argues that every rejection in prior office actions has been thoroughly explained and does not require further description and does not affect the validity of the rejection. Additionally, due to clarification provided regarding the meaning of the term “frame image data”, claims and limitations previously indicated as allowable have been found to read on newly found prior art. The examiner apologizes for the inconvenience.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections based on prior art filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that different embodiments of Howard were referenced to teach one embodiment of the current invention and that it would not be obvious or anticipated to combine these embodiments into one invention. However, it is the examiner’s understanding the limitation of the optrode being 8 microns is elaborating on one embodiment. The language used is “embodiments may include” and the disclosure the applicant refers to in [0239] does not refer to the size. The disclosure of [0182] does not preclude using a different size to achieve the same purpose. There is no specific benefit to using one size over another in either embodiment. They are simple substitutions of each other and would therefore be obvious.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 6 and 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is simply not possible for the density of the emitters to be both at least 2 times and at least 4 times greater in all instances and specifically the densities of 2 and 3 times are included in option (a) but not option (b) as option (b) actively excludes those two possibilities. This introduces indefiniteness into the claim because there is a lack of clarity about whether a device with 2x or 3x density reads on the claim limitations. It is the examiner’s recommendation to simply remove the “one or more” phrasing as the “at least” 2x density is also inclusive of the 4x density. Another recommendation would be to get rid of the 4x limitation altogether because as stated above, it is included in the 2x option.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that there are multiple locations in the specification (see page 19 of remarks) where the artificial viewing session is discussed, however these discussions only disclose how the session is initiated or ended but nothing actually elucidates what it is, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether invention falls in the scope of the art. Furthermore, the applicant’s assertation that the Office Action does not articulate any proposed construction is unclear as there is no way for an office action to articulate proposed construction when there is none present. As already stated, the Office has provided a complete office action prior.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 regarding the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claims 3 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the limitation “the system is configured to present by the emitter array light emissions to stimulate hypercolumn quadrants of the array of hypercolumns” is not a means plus function limitation and has adequate structure because the “emitter array” is well-known in the art. While an emitter array is well-known in the art, the applicant has also provided a function that the emitter array must complete. The specific act of stimulating hypercolumns is not well-known in the art and therefore some level of structure such as the layout of the diodes/light emitting portion or the specific wavelengths and signal properties that achieve the intended function must be provided to overcome the assumption that the claim does not provide adequate structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Since in paragraph [0044], structure is disclosed, there are no further rejections made under 35 USC 112(b) or 112(a).
The applicant further argues that the limitation of “a plurality of detectors are configured to detect response signals from brain tissue of the user that has been excited by a light emission of one or more emitter of the plurality of emitters” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the plurality of detectors are well-understood in the art. However, due to the broad nature of the claim, it is unclear what kind of signal is being detected by the detector array. The disclosure at paragraph [0052] states “detector array 150 for detecting light emissions from each respective column”, therefore limiting the claim to only detectors that detect light emissions. This is further supported by the disclosure at paragraph [0100] which described detector array 150 as a hyperspectral array of spectrophotometers capable of detecting bioluminescent or fluorescent emissions from neurons modified to express light-emitting or fluorescent proteins. The detailed disclosure in the specification protects against an enablement based rejection, but this specific structure not being in the claims is a means + function limitation interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). As of this time, detecting light emitted by brain cells is a very new and emerging part of neuroimaging and therefore is not well-known in the art, so the further structure of the “hyperspectral array of spectrophotometers capable of detecting bioluminescent or fluorescent emissions from neurons modified to express light-emitting or fluorescent proteins” is necessary to understand the intended structure.
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: “plurality of detectors are configured to detect response signals from brain tissue of the suer that has been excited by a light emission of one or more emitter of the plurality of emitters” in claim 16.
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.
The detector array is given further structure in paragraphs [0052] and [0100] and therefore, the broadest reasonable limitation of these claims are limited to a hyperspectral array of spectrophotometers capable of detecting bioluminescent or fluorescent emissions from neurons modified to express light-emitting or fluorescent proteins.
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
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 6 and 23 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. Claims 6 and 23 includes multiple embodiments as multiple options can be selected (“one or more”), however some of these embodiments are mutually exclusive and cannot be used together. The density of emitters cannot be both 4 times greater and 2 times greater than the density of cortical columns and the option of selecting “one or more” introduces this possibility.
Claim 28 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 28 describes an “artificial viewing session”, however the intended scope of this term and what exactly the applicant attempting to claim is unclear. The applicant attempts to address the “artificial viewing session” in paragraphs [0087], [0110], [0111], [0116], [0123], and [0135], however these disclosures are insufficient to actually describe the meaning of the terms rather than how it is implemented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 44 -47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al (US 20200298005); hereinafter Howard (cited previously) in view of Ren et al (US 20080161915 A1); hereinafter Ren.
Regarding claim 1, claim interpretation should clarified prior to mapping the present claims to the prior art. Firstly, there are many limitations in the claim language that were not considered to be of patentable significance as they are functional language and/or relate to qualities of the subject that were not imparted by the present invention. Such limitations are “visual cortex that defines a component of the neocortex, the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying, or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns”. Assuming arguendo that such columns are not inherent to every potential subject’s brain, they are still a part of the subject rather than the invention. Another such limitation is that the cortical columns are “capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining a location or topographical relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of columns”. Cortical columns are always capable of being mapped and measured, it just depends on the kind of measuring devices and mapping tools used. This is not a function of the present invention but rather the mapping is done prior to the use of the present invention. Claim 1 is also a system claim, meaning that the prior art must simply be capable of performing the cited functions.
Howard teaches a system comprising: an implant ([0002] implanted device) adapted for implantation in a user having a visual cortex that defines a component of the neocortex, the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns; wherein the implant includes an emitter array (fig. 12 optrode array, [0239]); wherein the emitter array includes a plurality of emitters (fig. 12 shows a plurality of emitters, [0248] large array of pixels), wherein respective ones of the plurality of emitters are configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns ([0200] attached to a platform on the cortical surface) capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining a location or topographical relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns. Howard fails to teach a camera image sensor.
Ren teaches the system includes an eye viewing camera image sensor having a field of view encompassing an eye of the user ([0001] a micro-camera mounted in an artificial eye), wherein the system performs processing to determine a current eye position, and emits a scene representing light pattern using the emitter array to the array of hypercolumns in dependence on the current eye position ([0007] the visual input that is captured by the camera comprises a discreet number of pixels, wherein each pixel is characterized by an intensity and a predetermined position that is representative of the object being viewed). It would have been obvious to modify the system of Howard with the camera of Ren because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Ren teaches “the primary visual cortex may be manipulated to create visual images despite the condition of the eye and optic nerve”([0002]). Howard describes in detail a brain stimulation device and the system of Ren discusses using that brain stimulation device for a particular purpose of creating images in the occipital lobe of blind people.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Howard and Ren teaches the system of claim 1. Howard further teaches the system further comprises:
the implant ([0002] implanted device) adapted for implantation in the user having a visual cortex that defines a component of the neocortex, the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns;
wherein the emitter array (fig. 12 optrode array, [0239]) includes a plurality of emitters (fig. 12 shows a plurality of emitters, [0248] large array of pixels), wherein respective ones of the plurality of emitters are configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns ([0200] attached to a platform on the cortical surface) capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining a location or topographical relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns.
Regarding claim 3, Ren teaches frame image data is obtained by a scene camera image sensor adapted to be worn by the user ([0001] a micro-camera mounted in an artificial eye).
Regarding claim 4, Ren teaches frame image data is transmitted to the user from a remote computing node ([0029] the processor 50 and camera 42 may include antennas (not shown) that communicate through a modulated, radio frequency, transmit signal).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Howard and Ren teaches the system of claim 2. Howard further teaches a density of the plurality of emitters of the emitter array has greater density than the density of hypercolumn quadrants defining hypercolumns of the array of hypercolumns ([0182] optical modulation units may be built within the nucleus of the implant device that can deliver light to precise locations deep within the brain, [0189] spatially controlled optical excitation (i.e., by turning on specific VCSELs 206, guide electrodes and optic fibers to specific regions of the brain).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Howard and Ren teaches the system of claim 1. Ren further teaches the system if configured to present by the emitter array light emissions to stimulate hypercolumn quadrants of the array of hypercolumns, the light emissions based on frame image data ([0001] systems and methods for stimulating the primary visual cortex to create visual images).
Regarding claim 45, Howard teaches a system comprising: an implant ([0002] implanted device) adapted for implantation in a user having a visual cortex that defines a component of the neocortex, the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns; wherein the implant includes an emitter array (fig. 12 optrode array, [0239]); wherein the emitter array includes a plurality of emitters (fig. 12 shows a plurality of emitters, [0248] large array of pixels), wherein respective ones of the plurality of emitters are configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns ([0200] attached to a platform on the cortical surface) capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining a location or topographical relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns. Howard fails to teach that the light emissions are based on frame image data. Ren teaches the system is configured to present by the emitter array light emissions to stimulate hypercolumn quadrants of the array of hypercolumns, the light emissions based on frame image data ([0005] a system directly stimulates the primary visual cortex of an otherwise blind patient to create a visual image by the patient. Importantly, visual input is captured and converted into electrical stimuli. This electrical stimuli is then transferred to predetermined areas of the primary visual cortex for creation of the visual image by the patient. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Howard with the camera of Ren because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Ren teaches “the primary visual cortex may be manipulated to create visual images despite the condition of the eye and optic nerve”([0002]). Howard describes in detail a brain stimulation device and the system of Ren discusses using that brain stimulation device for a particular purpose of creating images in the occipital lobe of blind people.
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Howard and Ren teaches the system of claim 45. Ren further teaches the frame image data is obtained by a scene camera image sensor adapted to be worn by the user ([0001] a micro-camera mounted in an artificial eye).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Howard and Ren teaches the system of claim 45. Ren further teaches frame image data is transmitted to the user from a remote computing node ([0029] the processor 50 and camera 42 may include antennas (not shown) that communicate through a modulated, radio frequency, transmit signal).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Howard and Ren in view of Musallam et al (US 20210023372 A1); hereinafter Musallam.
The combination of Howard and Ren teaches the system of claim 2. Howard fails to teach a calibration process. Musallam teaches running of the calibration process includes discovering ones of the plurality of emitters that are aligned to a hypercolumn quadrant of the plurality of hypercolumns with minimized crosstalk between hypercolumn quadrants, and wherein as a result of the calibration process select ones of the plurality of the emitters that are determined to be not aligned to a hypercolumn quadrant of the plurality of hypercolumns are disabled ([0309] a need for precise placement of an electrode). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Howard with Musallam because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Musallam teaches that aligning the emitters to the intended location “reduces the possibility of tissue damage from the optical signal” ([0309]).
Claim(s) 16,17, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Liran et al (US 8571669 B2); hereinafter Liran.
Regarding claim 16, Howard teaches a system comprising:
an implant ([0002] implanted device) adapted for implantation in a user having a neocortex at least part of which has been made responsive to light, the neocortex defined by a cortical map characterized by a plurality of columns;
a plurality of emitters (fig. 12 optrode array, [0239]), wherein respective ones of the plurality of emitters are configured to emit light toward the cortical map characterized by the plurality of columns of the neocortex of the user;
a plurality of detectors, wherein respective ones of the plurality of detectors are configured to detect response signals from brain tissue of the user that has been excited by a light emission of one or more emitter of the plurality of emitters ([0228] In embodiments, CNTs may be used for deep brain recordings of voltages from neural tissues in their vicinities).The combination fails to teach that the sensors and stimulators are both located on the implant. Liran teaches the system is further characterized by one or more of the following selected from the group consisting of (a) the plurality of emitters and the plurality of detectors are co-located in the implant adapted for implantation in the user (Although sensor 132 is shown in FIG. 11 as a part of prosthesis 20, in practice the sensor can be implemented either within the implanted prosthesis or outside the human body, such as on a spectacle frame on which power and control circuits for the prosthesis may be mounted). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Howard with Liran because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Liran teaches “sensor 132 detects that the power level from source 130 has dropped below a certain level, the sensor automatically reduces the number of active channels 40 (and corresponding electrodes) in the array. Optionally, the sensor may have two or more voltage thresholds, and may reduce the number of active channels further as each threshold is passed”. Despite the fact that sensor senses power levels rather than the intended parameter indicated in the specification, the scope of the claim remains broad enough that it still reads on the limitation.
Recording claim 17, the combination of Howard and Liran teaches the system of claim 16. Howard further teaches the implant ([0002] implanted device) adapted for implantation in the user having a visual cortex of the neocortex, the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns formed in an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of columns;
wherein respective ones of the plurality of emitters are configured to emit light toward the array of hypercolumns (fig. 12 optrode array, [0239]);
wherein respective ones of the plurality of detectors are configured to detect response signals from brain tissue of the user that has been excited by a light emission of one or more emitter of the plurality of emitters ([0228] In embodiments, CNTs may be used for deep brain recordings of voltages from neural tissues in their vicinities).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Howard and Liran teaches the system of claim 16. Liran further teaches the plurality of emitters and the plurality of detectors are co-located in the implant adapted for implantation in the user (Although sensor 132 is shown in FIG. 11 as a part of prosthesis 20, in practice the sensor can be implemented either within the implanted prosthesis or outside the human body, such as on a spectacle frame on which power and control circuits for the prosthesis may be mounted).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Howard and Liran teaches the system of claim 16. Liran further teaches the implant adapted for implantation in the user includes a housing, and wherein the plurality of emitters and the plurality of detectors are disposed in the housing (Although sensor 132 is shown in FIG. 11 as a part of prosthesis 20, in practice the sensor can be implemented either within the implanted prosthesis or outside the human body, such as on a spectacle frame on which power and control circuits for the prosthesis may be mounted).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9,12,14,15,22,37,38,39, 42, and 43 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at (571) 272-4949. 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796