Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s foreign priority claim, for U.S. Application No. 18/606,539, based on a foreign application filed on 09/16/2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–17 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 15 are rejected.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
Overview of Grounds of Rejection
Ground of Rejection 1
1–6, 9, 11, 12, 15
§ 103
Courter et al. (EP3420481A1); Meilland et al. (US20210225074A1); Borgefors (NPL); Sharp et al. (US20110141121A1)
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 of this title, 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.
(Please see the cited paragraphs, sections, pages, or surrounding text in the references for the paraphrased content.)
Ground of Rejection 1
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courter et al. (EP3420481A1) in view of Meilland et al. (US20210225074A1), further in view of Borgefors (NPL), and still further in view of Sharp et al. (US20110141121A1).
As per Claim 1, Courter et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“A computer-implemented method for creating a second voxel model (VM2) from a first voxel model (VM), wherein the first voxel model (VM), which has first voxel (VX1), represents a 3D model of a physical object, wherein a distance attribute is assigned to each first voxel (VX1), wherein the distance of the respective first voxel (VX1) to the surface of the object can be stored in the distance attribute…”
“In the embodiments described below, the problems associated with boundary representations are overcome by using distance fields. As used herein, a ‘distance field value’ is the length of the shortest vector between the voxel and the part’s mesh boundaries… the three-dimensional build space … [is] dividing … into a three-dimensional matrix of voxels. The closest distance from each voxel to a part boundary is then determined … This produces a three-dimensional matrix of distance field values.” — Courter et al., ¶[0032].
Courter teaches a voxelized 3D model where each voxel carries a distance-to-surface value, matching the “distance attribute … distance … to the surface … stored” language.
Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Meilland et al. and Borgefors (NPL), they collectively teach some of the limitation(s).
Meilland et al. and Borgefors (NPL) teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“…wherein for each first voxel (VX1) whose minimum distance (d) in terms of magnitude lies below a first predetermined threshold value (dMAX), the minimum distance (d) in terms of magnitude is stored in the distance attribute, and for each first voxel (VX1) whose minimum distance in terms of magnitude (d) lies above the first predetermined threshold value (dMAX), a predetermined distance (d±∞) is stored in the distance attribute;”
“A signed distance value is stored if a voxel is within the truncation threshold… Row 3 and Row 3′ are outside of the respective truncation threshold, thus there is no signed distance function stored. Or, in other words, the signed distance is truncated or ignored for those voxels outside of the respective truncation threshold.” — Meilland et al., ¶[0065] (FIG. 5 description).
Meilland teaches TSDF banding where voxels with |d| ≤ dMAX retain the finite signed distance, satisfying the “below threshold” half of this limitation.
“The sequential algorithm also starts from the zero/infinity image… The masks are passed over the image once each: the forward one … and the backward one … After these two passes the distance transform is computed.” — Borgefors (NPL), Sec. 2, p. 347.
Borgefors is a foundational source showing the established practice of initializing non-feature voxels to a predetermined large value (“infinity”), which corresponds to the claim’s “predetermined distance (d±∞)” representation for voxels beyond the threshold band.
A POSITA would recognize that the TSDF truncation band of Meilland (store finite distance within a threshold) and the infinite sentinel convention in Borgefors (far voxels set to a predetermined value) are well-known, complementary patterns for representing near vs. far distances on voxel grids.
Courter, Meilland et al. and Borgefors (NPL) alone do not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sharp et al. (US20110141121A1), they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Sharp et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“…in a first step (S1), the second voxel model (VM2) that has second voxels (VX2) is generated with a dimension identical to the first voxel model (VM), wherein a first voxel (VX1) corresponds to a second voxel (VX2), wherein a distance attribute is assigned to each second voxel (VX2), wherein the distance (d2) of the respective second voxel (VX2) to the surface of the object can be stored in the distance attribute;”
“The output of the distance transform engine is a distance image 104 which corresponds to the input image 102 and comprises a distance value at each image element location.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0026].
Sharp describes producing a second grid (distance image) that “corresponds to the input image” - i.e., identical dimensions and one-to-one element mapping - and each element holds a distance value, matching the VM2/VX2 correspondence and the “distance (d2) … stored” requirement.
Sharp et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“…in a second step (S2), iteration is performed in a first direction by the first voxel model (VM), wherein for each first voxel (VX1) with a stored predetermined distance (d±∞), a first approximated distance (da1) is determined for the corresponding second voxel (VX2) and stored in the distance attribute of the corresponding second voxel (VX2);”
“The distance transform engine initializes the distance image … image elements within the seed region … set to zero and all other image elements … set to infinity… The distance transform engine begins a forward raster scan … starting in the upper left corner … moving left-to-right and top-to-bottom.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0031]–[0032].
Sharp’s initialization to “infinity” matches voxels having the claimed “predetermined distance (d±∞)”, and the forward raster scan is the first directional iteration that computes and writes a first approximation to the distance image (VM2).
Sharp et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “…in a third step (S3), iteration is performed in a second direction by the first voxel model (VM), wherein for each first voxel (VX1) with a stored predetermined distance (d±∞), a second approximated distance (da2) is determined for the corresponding second voxel (VX2) taking into account the first approximated distance (da1) and stored in the distance attribute of the corresponding second voxel (VX2);”
“When the forward raster scan ends … the distance transform engine then carries out a backward raster scan over the distance image. The backward raster scan begins … and moves from right to left and bottom to top.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0032].
Sharp’s backward raster scan is the second directional iteration that uses values from the first pass (da1) to refine distances (da2) stored in the distance image (VM2).
Courter et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“…wherein the second voxel model (VM2) represents a 3D model of the physical object for controlling a 3D printer, wherein control instructions for controlling the 3D printer are derived from the second voxels (VX2), and the control instructions for transmission to the 3D printer are provided.”
“To build a part using additive manufacturing, print data is generated from a digital model… Based on the print data, print instructions are generated and provided to the printer…” — Courter et al., ¶[0031].
“After the material bitmaps 228 have been converted into print instructions, the print instructions are communicated or output … Since print instructions incorporate the material designations for each voxel …” — Courter et al., ¶[0097].
Courter teaches deriving printer control instructions directly from voxel-level data and providing those instructions to the printer, matching the claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have reasonably combined Borgefors (NPL)’s two-pass distance-transform framework starting from a “zero/infinity image” with forward and backward sweeps to propagate nearest-surface distances efficiently, with Sharp et al.’s concrete raster-scan forward pass/backward pass implementation and infinity initialization for non-seed elements, with Meilland et al.’s TSDF truncation band that stores signed distances only within a threshold, and with Courter et al.’s voxel pipeline that generates and provides print instructions from voxel data. This combination yields improved computational efficiency and memory use while predictably producing a second voxel model whose values drive standard AM toolpaths/bitmaps - a foreseeable use of established techniques to achieve the claimed result.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 2, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Meilland et al., Borgefors (NPL) and Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 2 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein, in the second step (S2), the stored distance (d) is additionally copied into the corresponding distance attribute of the second voxel (VX2) for each first voxel (VX1) with a stored distance (d) in the distance attribute.”
“The distance transform engine initializes the distance image… image elements within the seed region may be set to zero and all other image elements … set to infinity. Other ways of initializing the distance image may be used.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0031].
“The distance transform engine begins a forward raster scan …” — Sharp et al., ¶[0032].
“The output … is a distance image … which corresponds to the input image and comprises a distance value at each image element location.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0026].
S2’s forward raster scan over a corresponding output grid allows the POSITA to copy known distances into matching positions of VM2 as the chosen “other” initialization - i.e., “copied into the corresponding … VX2.” (Sharp expressly allows different initializations and the grids correspond one-to-one.)
“A signed distance value is stored if a voxel is within the truncation threshold… Row 3 and Row 3′ are outside … thus there is no signed distance function stored. … the signed distance is truncated or ignored for those voxels outside …” — Meilland et al., ¶[0065].
Given Meilland’s TSDF already stores finite distances on VM1, a POSITA applying Sharp’s S2 would copy those known distances into VM2 at corresponding indices to seed propagation during the forward pass—an ordinary initialization choice that Sharp permits.
“The sequential algorithm also starts from the zero/infinity image… The masks are passed … forward … and backward …” — Borgefors (NPL), Sec. 2, p. 347.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA using Sharp’s forward/backward scan with flexible initialization would naturally copy Meilland’s stored finite TSDF distances into the corresponding VM2 voxels at the start of S2 - a standard seed/far setup well-known from Borgefors - to yield predictable distance propagation and results.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 3, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Meilland et al., Borgefors (NPL) and Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 3 that recites:
“The method of claim 2, wherein in the third step (S3), first voxels that have a stored distance (d) in the distance attribute are skipped.”
“When the forward raster scan ends … the distance transform engine then carries out a backward raster scan over the distance image. The backward raster scan begins … and moves from right to left and bottom to top.” (Sharp et al., ¶[0032])
“A signed distance value is stored if a voxel is within the truncation threshold … [voxels] outside … there is no signed distance function stored … the signed distance is truncated or ignored for those voxels outside … .” (Meilland et al., ¶[0065])
“The sequential algorithm also starts from the zero/infinity image … The masks are passed over the image once each: the forward one … and the backward one … .” (Borgefors, Sec. 2, p. 347)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA running Sharp’s backward raster scan on an input that already stores finite distances for a band of voxels per Meilland would add a trivial guard (e.g., a boolean mask or flag) to bypass those known-distance voxels during S3, since they are already fixed seeds and evaluating their neighbor-min computations is unnecessary work. This is a routine implementation choice that preserves the seeds from Borgefors’s standard zero/∞ setup and reduces redundant computation - a predictable optimization yielding the claimed “skipped” behavior in S3.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 4, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Meilland et al. and Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 4 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein in the first step (S1), the second voxel model (VM2) is initialized as a copy of the first voxel model (VM).”
“The output of the distance transform engine is a distance image 104 which corresponds to the input image 102 and comprises a distance value at each image element location.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0026].
“The distance transform engine initializes the distance image … Other ways of initializing the distance image may be used.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0031].
Sharp provides VM2 as a grid that “corresponds to the input” (same layout/one-to-one indices) and expressly permits “other ways of initializing” the output grid. Copying the already-available per-voxel distance values from VM (Claim 1) into the corresponding locations of VM2 is a straightforward initialization within Sharp’s permitted variants - i.e., “initialized as a copy.”
“A signed distance value is stored if a voxel is within the truncation threshold … [voxels] outside … there is no signed distance function stored … the signed distance is truncated or ignored for those voxels outside … .” — Meilland et al., ¶[0065].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA applying Sharp’s distance-image (VM2) with flexible initialization to a first model like Meilland’s TSDF (which already stores per-voxel distances) would naturally initialize VM2 by copying VM’s distances into the corresponding indices in S1 to seed the subsequent passes - an ordinary, predictable implementation choice.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 5, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 5 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein in the second step (S2) and/or in the third step (S3), the first approximated distance (da1) and/or the second approximated distance (da2) for the corresponding second voxels (VX2) is determined from the stored distances of those second voxels (VX2) which are adjacent to the respective second voxel (VX2) up to a predetermined number of voxels, preferably in each direction.”
“Distance transforms … may be computed using raster scan algorithms by using windows or kernels of various different types and sizes. FIG. 2 shows five different pairs of windows … chamfer 3×3 … chamfer 5×5 and chamfer 7×7. Each pair comprises a window … for a forward pass … and a window … for a backward pass.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0030].
“The kernel operation comprises replacing the distance image element … by the minimum of … distance values … specified by the window.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0033].
“//perform the first (forward) pass … if (M(x−1,y−1)+p2 < M(x,y)) … if (M(x,y−1)+p1 < M(x,y)) … if (M(x+1,y−1)+p2 < M(x,y)) … if (M(x−1,y)+p1 < M(x,y)) … //perform the final (backward) pass …” — Sharp et al., ¶[0037].
Sharp computes da1/da2 in the forward/backward passes using a window of predetermined size (3×3, 5×5, 7×7) - i.e., adjacent voxels up to a set radius in each direction - and updates each voxel by taking the minimum of neighbor-based sums as specified by the window, which directly aligns with determining the approximations from stored distances of adjacent VX2s up to a predetermined number of voxels in S2/S3.
The rationale and motivation to combine the references as set forth for claim 1 are incorporated herein by reference for the present claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 6, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 6 that recites:
“The method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined number of voxels is two.”
“Distance transforms … may be computed … by using windows or kernels of various different types and sizes. FIG. 2 shows … chamfer 3×3 … chamfer 5×5 and chamfer 7×7.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0030].
A 5×5 chamfer window spans two voxels in each direction from the center (i.e., a radius-2 neighborhood). Thus, Sharp teaches determining distances using a predetermined number of voxels = two, satisfying Claim 6.
The rationale and motivation to combine the references as set forth for claim 1 are incorporated herein by reference for the present claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 9, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 9 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second voxel model (VM; VM2) are in each case three-dimensional, wherein in the first direction, starting from an origin, iteration first occurs iteratively over a first dimension (X), then over a second dimension (Y) and last over a third dimension (Z), in each case in ascending order.”
Limitation: 3D voxel models (VM; VM2 are three-dimensional)
“FIG. 6 provides a three-dimensional build space 400… there is a … +Z … an X direction … and a Y direction… a planar slice … includes a collection of voxels… there are multiple slices … such that voxels fill the entirety of build space 400.” — Courter et al., ¶[0046].
Courter squarely teaches 3D voxel volumes with X/Y/Z axes, satisfying the “three-dimensional” requirement for both VM and VM2.
Limitation: “First direction… iterate over X, then Y… in ascending order” (forward scan inside each slice)
“The distance transform engine begins a forward raster scan… It begins … in the upper left corner… The window is then moved to the right… **from left to right along each row and from the top row to the bottom row of the distance image.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0032].
“//perform the first (forward) pass for y = 1 to Y do … for x = 1 to X do …” — Sharp et al., ¶[0037].
“This process is applicable for 2D, 3D or higher dimensional images…” — Sharp et al., ¶[0039].
Sharp teaches a deterministic forward order per slice—x increasing within each row then y increasing across rows—i.e., X then Y in ascending order, and states the process applies to 3D.
Limitation: “…and last over a third dimension (Z), in ascending order” (sequential Z traversal across slices)
“At step 101, slice computations process defines a three-dimensional build space… At step 102, the lowest slice in the build space is selected.” — Courter et al., ¶[0045]–[0047].
“An embodiment… performs sequentially rendering … in a first Z direction… for each of a plurality of Z positions…” — Courter et al., ¶[0008].
Courter selects the lowest slice and performs sequential Z processing across Z positions, supporting a Z-ordered traversal consistent with ascending Z slices after the X-then-Y sweep.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA implementing Sharp’s forward raster on 3D voxels (per Sharp’s 3D applicability) in a build space like Courter’s would naturally extend the 2D forward order (X then Y ascending from an origin) to the volume by iterating slices along Z sequentially (beginning at the lowest slice), yielding a conventional X→Y→Z ascending nested loop—an ordinary and predictable generalization for 3D rasterization.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 11, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Meilland et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 11 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the distance (d) and/or the second approximated distance (da2) is only stored for each second voxel (VX2) if it additionally meets a predetermined storage criterion.”
Limitation: “Distance (d) … only stored … if [a] predetermined storage criterion”
“A signed distance value is stored if a voxel is within the truncation threshold… Row 3 and Row 3′ are outside … thus there is no signed distance function stored. … the signed distance is truncated or ignored for those voxels outside … .” — Meilland et al., ¶[0065].
“The TSDF values can save storage space by including only values within a truncation band … only storing data for voxels that are within a threshold distance of a surface.” — Meilland et al., ¶[0008].
Meilland defines a predetermined storage criterion (the truncation threshold/band). Distances are stored only if the voxel satisfies that criterion; otherwise no value is stored.
Limitation: “Second approximated distance (da2) … only stored … if [criterion]”
“The test distance value … is then compared to the current stored distance field value … If the test distance is less than the current distance field value, the test distance is set as the new current distance field value. If … not less … the current distance field value remains the same.” — Courter et al., ¶[0060].
Courter uses a predetermined write criterion (new < current). The approximated distance is stored only when the condition is met; otherwise it is not stored.
Before the effective filing date, a POSITA combining Meilland’s threshold-based TSDF storage rule for d with Courter’s conditional update rule for updated/approximated distances would apply “store only if the criterion holds” in both contexts - an ordinary, predictable use of well-known storage/overwrite conditions.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 12, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Meilland et al. and Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 12 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein: for each second voxel (VX2) whose minimum distance in terms of magnitude lies below a second predetermined threshold value (d2 MAX), the distance (d; da2) is stored in the distance attribute, and for each second voxel (VX2) whose minimum distance in terms of magnitude lies above the second predetermined threshold value (d2 MAX), a predetermined distance (d±∞) is stored in the distance attribute.”
“A signed distance value is stored if a voxel is within the truncation threshold …” — Meilland et al., ¶[0065].
“The TSDF values … including only values within a truncation band … only storing data for voxels that are within a threshold distance of a surface.” — Meilland et al., ¶[0008].
This is the claim’s first clause—store the distance for voxels whose magnitude is below a threshold.
“The distance transform engine initializes the distance image … all other image elements … may be set to infinity.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0031].
Using Sharp’s standard ∞ sentinel for non-seed/far voxels provides the claimed predetermined distance (d±∞) in VM2 for voxels outside the threshold—i.e., they remain ∞ (or are set to a fixed far value) when the algorithm gates updates to the truncation band.
Before the effective filing date, a POSITA implementing VM2 as a distance field would combine Meilland’s thresholded storage (store values only within the band) with Sharp’s conventional “set to infinity” for voxels outside that band, thereby storing d (or da2) for |d| < d2MAX and a predetermined far value (d±∞) otherwise - an ordinary, predictable integration of well-known TSDF gating with standard DT sentinels.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 15, Courter alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Sharp et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s) of Claim 15 that recites:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the second voxel model (VM) generated in the first step (S1) has the same number of second voxels (VX2) as the first voxel model (VM) has first voxels (VX1).”
“The output of the distance transform engine is a distance image 104 which corresponds to the input image 102 and comprises a distance value at each image element location.” — Sharp et al., ¶[0026].
“The input image may have more than 2 dimensions. For instance it can be a 3D medical volume …” — Sharp et al., ¶[0025].
“This process is applicable for 2D, 3D or higher dimensional images …” — Sharp et al., ¶[0039].
Sharp’s output grid “corresponds to the input” and has “a distance value at each image element location,” which means a one-to-one mapping of elements between input and output. Because Sharp applies equally to 3D volumes, a POSITA would implement S1 so that VM2 has a matching index for each voxel of VM - i.e., the same number of voxels.
The rationale and motivation to combine the references as set forth for claim 1 are incorporated herein by reference for the present claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied upon in this action is as follows:
Patent Literature:
Courter et al. (EP3420481A1) — “GPU material assignment for 3D printing using 3D distance fields”
Meilland et al. (US20210225074A1) — “Multi-resolution voxel meshing”
Sharp et al. (US20110141121A1) — “Parallel Processing for Distance Transforms”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
Borgefors (NPL) — “Distance Transformations in Digital Images”, 1986. Available at: [https://people.cmm.minesparis.psl.eu/users/marcoteg/cv/publi_pdf/MM_refs/1986_Borgefors_distance.pdf]
Note: A PDF copy of each NPL reference is attached with this Office Action. URLs are included for applicant convenience. If a link becomes unavailable in the future, the citation information may be used to locate the reference or access archived versions via the Wayback Machine.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed as follows:
Patent Literature:
Stevens et al. (US20170015057A1) — “Preparing a Polygon Mesh for Printing”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
(none)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADEEL BASHIR whose telephone number is (571) 270-0440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 276-7642. 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.
/ADEEL BASHIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616