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 .
Priority
Claims 1-12 are deemed to have an effective filing date of June 6, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (p) (3) because “numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height”. Figs. 1-3 have numbers, letters and/or reference characters that are too small.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (o) because a legend is required for the boxes designated by reference numerals “20”, “21”, “22”, “23”, “24”, “25”, and “27” (Fig. 2); and “2”, “33”, “37”, “38”, “39”, “40”, “35”, “50”, “51”, “52”, “53”, “54”, “55”, “56”, “57”, “58”, “34”, and “36” (Fig. 3).
CFR 1.84 (o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “correcting sensor” of claims 1-6, “displaying device” of claim 1, and “first sensor is a radar” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The Examiner notes that when boxes 20-25 of Fig. 2 are labeled, the displaying device, first sensor is a radar would be shown in the drawing.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "28", “28” and "3" have both been used to designate the oval in Fig. 2, and “30” and “29” have both been used to designate the rectangular box on the right-hand side of Fig. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 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 1 recites “a device acquiring examination data” in line 4 and that “the acquiring device comprises at least a first sensor for taking physiological measurements” and … is arranged to acquire a response datum” in lines 5-11. Thus, the data obtained by the acquiring device of lines 12-13 would include both the physiological measurements and the response datum. However, the claim is not clear as to what “an analysis of the data by the data-processing device” (lines 15-16) entails. Do these lines refer to the data received by the data-processing device, or, other data? Thus, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 9, line 3, recites “the correction data”. However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites “at least one correction datum”. It is unclear if the correction data refers back to the at least one correction datum of claim 1 as the claim does not mention how the correction data became plural.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the correction signal" in lines 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not mention a correction signal. It is unclear what is being referred.
Claim 12, line 4, recite the conditional preposition “if”, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the steps in lines 5-8 are required to meet the claims. The use of “if” includes both positive and negative scenarios, and in negative scenarios, the steps in lines 5-8 are not required. The Examiner recommends replacing “if” with --when--.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,426,380 to Schindhelm et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schindhelm”).
Referring to claim 1, Schindhelm discloses a system for providing assistance with delivery of diagnostic information, with a view to detecting a disease in a person (e.g., abstract: delivering diagnostic information re: breathing disorders), the system comprising: a device for acquiring examination data on a person, wherein the acquiring device comprises at least a first sensor for taking physiological measurements (e.g., column 4, lines 4-9; and column 18, lines 27-45: contactless motion sensor 7010 obtains motion signals/physiological signals) wherein the acquiring device comprises a plurality of non-contact sensors arranged to work without contact with the person (e.g., column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 3), wherein at least one of the non-contact sensors is arranged to acquire a response datum provided by the person (e.g., column 11, lines 11-33: contactless non-motion sensors improve overall accuracy or provide additional robustness such as sound sensors of the person that record the sound patterns of the person; and, column 13, line 47 through column 14, line 4 where the user interface is a sound sensor); a data-processing device arranged to receive the data obtained by the acquiring device (e.g., column 12, lines 58-67: processor 7006 analyzes the processed or received sensor data to trigger generation of a clinical alert based on features related to cardio-pulmonary health extracted from the sensor data); and a displaying device arranged to display diagnostic information regarding the disease based on an analysis of the data by the data-processing device (e.g., column 4, lines 4-9: monitoring apparatus and method generate a query for display to a patient based on the analysis of sensor data related to cardio-pulmonary health), wherein the diagnostic information is a score representing a probability that the person is suffering from the disease (e.g., column 17, lines 10-30: monitored respiratory parameters are analyzed to determine if the patient is at risk for re-admission soon after release and the monitoring apparatus may warn the clinician that the patient may be at a high risk for relapse and/or readmission … In some cases, a numerical value may, such as a Boolean indicator or a probability, which may comprise an estimate within a range so as to yield a scaled indication of greater or lesser risk of future relapse of a disease); wherein the acquiring device further comprises a correcting sensor different from the first sensor and arranged to acquire at least one correction datum on the person (e.g., column 13, line 47 through column 14, line 4: patient is asked a query to avoid unnecessary alerts where the patient responds via an interface/sound sensor), wherein the correction datum is different from data acquired by the first sensor (e.g., column 13, line 55 through column 14, line 4: patient responses/correction datum is different from the physiological signals acquired by the first sensor), wherein the data-processing device is arranged to use the correction datum to correct the examination data delivered by the first sensor (e.g., column 13, line 55 through column 14, line 4: processor further evaluates the data of the received responses to the query and based on this further evaluation may trigger an alert message, refrain from triggering an alert message, and/or delay a triggering of an alert message pending responses to additional triggered queries).
With respect to claim 2, Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the correcting sensor is arranged to acquire a datum representative of a movement of the person (e.g., column 21, line 51 through column 23, line 45: activity estimation and motion estimation module may have a movement correction sub-module that produces a binary validation flag for the movements detected in the movement detector sub-module by analyzing trends of movement over several minutes – Schindhelm teaches another correction sensor unit that can be used with the correction sensor).
As to 7, Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a radar arranged to acquire a datum representative of a breathing rate of the person, by detecting movement of the skin of the person (e.g., column 10, lines 39-52: In order to improve the quality of the respiratory movement signal (i.e., breathing rate), the physical volume from which reflected energy is collected by the sensor unit 1200 can be restricted using radar).
With respect to claim 8, Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data-processing device is arranged to correct the examination data depending on the correction datum using artificial intelligence (e.g., column 50, line 37 through column 52, line 21: in determining a prediction of a sleep disorder breathing (SDB), the prediction step may include a Quantum Neural Network (QNN), which is first trained in training data and works as a fuzzy nonlinear inference system and can approximate complex functions, or, the classifier is a naïve Bayesian classifier where QNN and Bayesian classifiers are well-known artificial intelligence techniques).
As to claim 9, Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data-processing device is arranged to obtain a correction signal based on the correction data, wherein the correction signal varies as a function of time (e.g., column 23, lines 39-42: movement correction sub-module produces a binary validation flag for the movements detected in the movement detector sub-module by analyzing trends of movement over several minutes implies that the correction signal/flag varies over time).
With respect to claim 10, Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data-processing device is arranged to deliver the examination data after correction using the correction signal (e.g., column 13, line 55 through column 14, line 4: processor further evaluates the data of the received responses to the query and based on this further evaluation may trigger an alert message, refrain from triggering an alert message, and/or delay a triggering of an alert message pending responses to additional triggered queries).
Regarding claim 11, Schindhelm discloses a method for providing assistance with delivery of diagnostic information, with a view to detecting a disease in a person (e.g., abstract: delivering diagnostic information re: breathing disorders) the method comprising: acquiring examination data on the person, using an acquiring device for acquiring examination data on the person, wherein the acquiring device comprises at least a first sensor for taking physiological measurements (e.g., column 7, lines 55-65: motion sensor 7010 generates one or more signals representing bodily movement of the patient, from which one or more signals can be obtained that represent the respiratory movement of the patient), wherein the acquiring device comprises a plurality of non-contact sensors arranged to work without contact with the person (e.g., column 7, line 55- column 8, 35: sensor unit 1200 includes contactless motion sensor 7010 and audio output 7017; and column 10, line 64 – column 11, line 19: more than one contactless motion sensor and one or more contactless non-motion sensors such as sound sensors can be used in implementations of the invention) wherein at least one of the non-contact sensors is arranged to acquire a response datum provided by the person (e.g., column 13, line 47 through column 14, line 4: patient is asked a query to avoid unnecessary alerts where the patient responds via an interface); and correcting the examination data using correction data acquired using a correcting sensor (e.g., column 13, line 55 through column 14, line 4: processor further evaluates the data of the received responses to the query and based on this further evaluation may trigger an alert message, refrain from triggering an alert message, and/or delay a triggering of an alert message pending responses to additional triggered queries – where the correcting sensor is the sound sensor that records patient responses and sends to a processor).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0146554 to Olesen et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Olesen”).
Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose that the correcting sensor comprises a 3D camera, for acquiring a datum representative of a movement of the person. Schindhelm discloses in column 53, lines 16-23 that movement sensors and cameras can be the device converting one form of energy into another signal. That is, Schindhelm equates a camera with the movement sensor discussed in the abstract and columns 21-23 of Schindhelm as discussed above w/r/t the rejection of claim 2). Olesen, in a related art: scanning and tracking monitoring apparatus and method [of a patient], teaches that the tracking data may comprise 3D representation data of an imaging region of the subject, e.g., any sensor capable of providing 3D surface representation data … including … a multiple-vision camera system (e.g., paragraph [0023] of Olesen). That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of the correcting sensor being a 3D camera in view of the teachings of Olesen. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the camera of Schindhelm to be a 3D camera in view of the teachings of Olesen that such was a well-known tracking sensor in the medical arts, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 101577068 B1 to Kim (hereinafter referred to as Kim and English translation is attached).
With respect to claim 4, Schindhelm discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the correcting sensor is arranged to acquire a datum representative of a voice of the person (e.g., paragraph [0038] of the Kim English translation: microphone 650 receives a voice response to the questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a microphone as a correcting sensor in view of the teachings of Kim. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Schindhelm to employ a microphone as the sound sensor to capture the subject’s responses in view of the teachings of Kim that such was a well-known expedient in the medical arts, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 5, Schindhelm in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the correcting sensor comprises a directional microphone (e.g., Kim, paragraph [0038] of the English translation), or a camera (e.g., Schindhelm) configured to acquire a datum representative of a voice of the person (e.g., Kim). With to the respect of a directional microphone, it is the Office Action’s position that the microphone of Kim has a direction and thus, is a directional microphone in the absence of criticality. The originally-filed specification does not provide a special meaning for “directional microphone”. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of Schindhelm to employ a directional microphone as the sound sensor to capture the subject’s responses in view of the teachings of Kim that such was a well-known expedient in the medical arts, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 6, Schindhelm in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the acquiring device comprises both a correcting sensor arranged to acquire a datum representative of a movement of the person (e.g., column 21, line 51 through column 23, line 45 of Schindhelm: activity estimation and motion estimation module may have a movement correction sub-module that produces a binary validation flag for the movements detected in the movement detector sub-module by analyzing trends of movement over several minutes – Schindhelm teaches another correction sensor unit that can be used with the correction sensor), and a correcting sensor arranged to acquire a datum representative of a voice of the person (e.g., column 13, line 47 through column 14, line 4 of Schindhelm: patient is asked a query to avoid unnecessary alerts where the patient responds via an interface/sound sensor where the sound sensor is modified to be a microphone acquiring voice datum of the patient as modified by Kim above) .
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schindhelm as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0371822 to Kaemmerer et al. (EFD: 09/23/2020 and hereinafter referred to as “Kaemmerer”).
Schindhelm discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, but does not expressly disclose that the person's heart rate is evaluated by a radar, wherein if the evaluation is disrupted by the voice of the person or movement of the person, the method comprises evaluating disruption using a sensor to correct the examination data (indefinite clause that is not required when the evaluation of the person’s heart is not disrupted …). However, Schindhelm does disclose using radar to acquire a datum representative of a breathing rate of the person, by detecting movement of the skin of the person (e.g., column 10, lines 39-52: In order to improve the quality of the respiratory movement signal (i.e., breathing rate), the physical volume from which reflected energy is collected by the sensor unit 1200 can be restricted using radar). Kaemmerer, in a related art: method for non-contact vital sign monitoring, teaches that heart rate can be extracted from a physiological signal of a patient without requiring direct contact with the user or patient being monitored (e.g., abstract and paragraph [0006] of Kaemmerer) and that heart rage is one of four major vital signs that are used to provide a comprehensive picture of an individual’s bodily vital functions (e.g., paragraph [0003]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of evaluating the heart rate of a patient that the heart rate is an important vital sign to measure/evaluate and a vital sign that can be evaluated without contact with the patient in view of the teachings of Kaemmerer). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Schindhelm to evaluate the heart rate of a person/patient using a non-contact sensor, such as radar as disclosed by Schindhelm, in view of the teachings of Kaemmerer, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
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 1-3 and 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/580,155 in view of Schindhelm.
Claims 1 and 10 of the instant application are encompassed by and conflict with claim 1 of the ‘155 application, except for “at least one of the non-contact sensors acquiring a response datum provided by the person”, which is disclosed by Schindhelm as discussed in item/paragraph 12 above.
Claims 2-3, and 7 of the instant application are encompassed by and conflict with claim 7 of the ‘155 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
Claim 8 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 8 of the ‘155 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
Claim 9 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 1 of the ‘155 application as modified by Schindhelm in item/paragraph 12 as above and with respect to the rejection of claim 9 in item/paragraph 12 above.
Claim 11 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflict with claims 1 and 11 of the ‘155 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
Claim 12 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 4 of the ‘155 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 4-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/580,155 in view of Schindhelm and Kim.
Claims 4-6 are encompassed by and conflict with claim 1 of the ‘155 application, as modified by Schindhelm above, except for the correcting sensor acquiring a datum representative of a voice of the person. However, as discussed above in item/paragraph 15 above, Kim teaches that it was known in the medical arts to ask questions of a patient and to record voice responses. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the system of claim 1 of the ‘155 invention to have the features of claims 4-6 as discussed above in item/paragraph 15 above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/559,390 in view of Schindhelm.
Claims 1 and 10 of the instant application are encompassed by and conflict with claim 1 of the ‘390 application, except for “the acquiring device further comprises a correcting sensor …”, which is disclosed by Schindhelm as discussed in item/paragraph 12 above.
Claims 2-3, and 7 of the instant application are encompassed by and conflict with claim 7 of the ‘390 application, as modified by Schindhelm as discussed in item/paragraph 12 above.
Claims 4-6 of the instant application are encompassed by and conflict with claim 5 of the ‘390 application, as modified by Schindhelm as above and as discussed by Schindhelm in item/paragraph 12 above with respect to the rejection of instant claim 6).
Claim 8 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 2 of the ‘1390 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
Claim 9 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 1 of the ‘390 application as modified by Schindhelm in item/paragraph 12 as above and with respect to the rejection of claim 9 in item/paragraph 12 above.
Claim 11 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflict with claims 1 and 11 of the ‘390 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
Claim 12 of the instant invention is encompassed by and conflicts with claim 8 of the ‘390 application, as modified by Schindhelm above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 9,462, 979 to Lisogurski et al. is directed to capacitance enhanced physiological measurements where an additional sensor determines a capacitance signal and the processing system reduces a noise level (or makes a correction) in the sensed physiological measurements based on the capacitance signal.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0263408 to Krueger is directed to contactless temperature-based monitoring of a patient where contactless sensors including a thermal camera are employed to evaluate cardiac motion and breathing motion during medical examinations (e.g., abstract and paragraph [0001]).
US Patent Application No. 2023/0190140 to Tiron et al. is directed to methods and apparatus for detection and monitoring of health parameters including non-contact acoustic sensing, optical sensing and radar sensing to evaluate vital signs of the patient (e.g., paragraphs [0061]; [0072]: respiratory signals are extracted from motion signals; [0086] and [0195]: non-contact sensors may include a microphone and a speaker or radar sensing to determine SDB) and the probability of SDB (e.g., paragraphs [0430]-[0438] and [0453]-[0455]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792