DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is made FINAL. Claims 1, 3-14, 17, and 19-23 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1, 3, and 19 have been amended; claims 15, 16, and 18 have been cancelled; and claims 21-23 have been added.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous § 102 rejections with respect to claims 1-18; maintains the previous § 102 rejections with respect to claim 19; maintains the previous double patenting rejection of claims 3 and 4; and adds the below § 103 rejections, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3-14, and 17 under Jung et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive, in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No 2024/0217593 to Lossov et al. (previously of record).
Examiner agrees that Jung et al. does not teach the use of a sensor to detect the middle shelf. That is the basis for withdrawing the previous § 102 rejections.
Applicant further argues that Jung et al. discloses a robot in which the upper and lower shelves slide, but teaches that the middle shelf is not removable. Remarks at p. 10. However, Applicant does not cite to Jung et al. for this argument, and Examiner cannot determine where Applicant’s position is supported by the teachings of Jung et al. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Furthermore, Jung et al. teaches that the bottom sliding shelf 1100B and middle shelf 1100A are removable at least at ¶¶ [0184] – [0186], which describe operations of the shelves and doors when the shelves are mounted in the housing and when they are not. Examiner further notes that claim 1, as presently written, does not require removable shelves, only that a shelf is detected in the housing.
Any remaining arguments are related to the above removable shelf arguments and are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0212455 to Jung et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 19, Jung et al. discloses:
A delivery robot (Figure 1, Ref. No. M) comprising:
a body housing including a storage defined therein and a body opening defined in a front surface thereof (Figure 6, Ref. Nos. 1000 (main body), S(1) and S(2) (storage), and 1042 (opening);
a door configured to operate either in a closed state to cover the body opening or an open state to open the body opening (Figure 5, Ref. No. 1200 depicting doors in a closed state and Figure 6 depicting doors in an open state);
a middle shelf partitioning the storage into an upper storage section and a lower storage section, the middle shelf being mountable to the body housing, (Figure 6 depicting middle shelf 1100A moved to an outward position when the door is open; see also ¶ [0181] describing the partition member dividing the storage space into an upper space and a lower space).
a sliding shelf located at a bottom of the storage, the sliding shelf being slidable in a front and rear direction of the delivery robot (Figure 7, Ref. No. 1100A (middle shelf) and 1100B (bottom shelf; see also ¶ [0198] describing moving the shelf in and out of the storage); and
a shelf driver located under the sliding shelf, the shelf driver configured to move the sliding shelf in the front and rear direction (¶ [0039] describing the shelf driving device sliding the shelf in the forward and rear direction);
a sliding rail located under the sliding shelf, the sliding rail being configured to guide the sliding shelf, the sliding rail being located between the shelf driver and the sliding shelf (¶ [0244] describing the sliding rails located under the sliding shelf to guide the sliding shelf; see also Figure 13 and related description thereto depicting and describing the sliding rails between the shelf and shelf driver); and
a controller (¶¶ [0029] – [0032] describing the controller moving the door to an open and closed position and moving the shelves when the door is open) configured to:
operate the door to move between the closed state and the open state (¶ [0188] describing moving the door into a closed position and moving it into an open position); and
operate the sliding shelf to move in the front and rear direction (¶ [0201] describing moving the tray back and forth in a forward-rearward way),
wherein the storage includes a storage base located under the sliding shelf (Figure 11, Ref. No. 1440), the storage base having a driving hole, and
wherein the shelf driver is located under the storage based and is fastened to the sliding shelf via the driving hole (Figures 9-11 depict the claimed arrangement; see also ¶ [0208] describing how the shelf, shelf carrier, and shelf driver are connected).
Regarding claim 21, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations claim 19. Jung et al. further discloses:
wherein the sliding rail is located on the storage base (Figure 11 depicting sliding rails 1312 and 1314 being located on base 1440).
Regarding claim 23, Jung et al. discloses:
A delivery robot (Figure 1, Ref. No. M) comprising:
a body housing including a storage defined therein and a body opening defined in a front surface thereof (Figure 6, Ref. Nos. 1000 (main body), S(1) and S(2) (storage), and 1042 (opening);
a door configured to operate either in a closed state to cover the body opening or an open state to open the body opening (Figure 5, Ref. No. 1200 depicting doors in a closed state and Figure 6 depicting doors in an open state);
a sliding shelf located at a bottom of the storage, the sliding shelf being slidable in a front and rear direction of the delivery robot (Figure 7, Ref. No. 1100A (top shelf) and 1100B (bottom shelf; see also ¶ [0198] describing moving the shelf in and out of the storage); and
a shelf link having a first end connected to the door and a second end connected to the sliding shelf, wherein the shelf link is configured to: pull the sliding shelf to extend the sliding shelf from the storage when the door is opened; and push the sliding shelf to retract the sliding shelf into the storage when the door is closed (See Figures 9 and 10 depicting how the door driver and shelf driver are connected via a link that allows for the door driving device 1300 to actuator a rotor 1310 to open the door when sliding the shelf out and close the door when retracting the shelf; see also Figure 13 and ¶ [0244] describing how the rotor of the door driving device operates the shelf carrier to move along the rails).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0217593 to Lossov et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Jung et al. discloses:
A delivery robot (Figure 1, Ref. No. M) comprising:
a body housing including a storage defined therein and a body opening defined in a front surface thereof (Figure 6, Ref. Nos. 1000 (main body), S(1) and S(2) (storage), and 1042 (opening);
a door configured to operate either in a closed state to cover the body opening or an open state to open the body opening (Figure 5, Ref. No. 1200 depicting doors in a closed state and Figure 6 depicting doors in an open state);
a sliding shelf located at a bottom of the storage, the sliding shelf being slidable in a front and rear direction of the delivery robot (Figure 7, Ref. No. 1100A (middle shelf) and 1100B (bottom shelf); see also ¶ [0198] describing moving the shelf in and out of the storage);
a middle shelf partitioning the storage into an upper storage section and a lower storage section, the middle shelf being mountable to the body housing (Figure 7 depicting middle shelf 1100A mounted to the body housing; see also ¶ [0181] describing the partition member dividing the storage space into an upper space and a lower space); and
a controller (¶¶ [0029] – [0032] describing the controller moving the door to an open and closed position and moving the shelves when the door is open) configured to:
operate the door to move between the closed state and the open state (¶ [0188] describing moving the door into a closed position and moving it into an open position); and
operate the sliding shelf to move in the front and rear direction (¶ [0201] describing moving the tray back and forth in a forward-rearward way); and
wherein the controller is configured to operate the sliding shelf when the door is opened (¶¶ [0252], [0253] describing sliding the shelf in the front direction when the door is opened).
Jung et al. does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to detect mounting of the middle shelf, or operating the sliding shelf when the sensor detects that the shelf is mounted to the body.
Lossov et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a sensor to detect when shelves have been inserted into a storage space on a robot and to operate sliding shelf based on the detection of the insertion of the shelves (¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate sensor to detect the insertion of the shelves, as taught by Lossov et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in detecting where the shelf has been inserted relative to other shelves to determine the size of the storage spaces and operate the doors according to that size (Lossov et al. at ¶¶ [0027], [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 1. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
a shelf driver located under the sliding shelf, the shelf driver configured to move the sliding shelf in the front and rear direction (¶ [0039] describing the shelf driving device sliding the shelf in the forward and rear direction); and
a sliding rail located under the sliding shelf, the sliding rail being configured to guide the sliding shelf, the sliding rail being located between the shelf driver and the sliding shelf (¶ [0244] describing the sliding rails located under the sliding shelf to guide the sliding shelf; see also Figure 13 and related description thereto depicting and describing the sliding rails between the shelf and shelf driver).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 5. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
wherein the shelf driver is a linear actuator (¶¶ [0244] – [0246] describing the linear actuator of the shelf driver).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 5. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
wherein the storage includes a storage base located under the sliding shelf (Figure 11, Ref. No. 1440), and
wherein the shelf driver is fastened to the sliding shelf via a driving hole in the storage base (Figures 9-11 depict the claimed arrangement; see also ¶ [0208] describing how the shelf, shelf carrier, and shelf driver are connected).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 8. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
wherein the sliding rail is located on the storage base (Figure 11 depicting sliding rails 1312 and 1314 being located on base 1440).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 1. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
wherein the sliding shelf includes a spill preventing protrusion protruding upward at a perimeter of the sliding shelf (¶ [0184] describing the shelf being a container with an open top, which would include walls protruding at the perimeter; NOTE: spill prevention is an intended outcome of the protrusions, which are taught by Jung et al.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 11. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
wherein the sliding shelf includes a fall preventing wall protruding upward from a rear surface of the sliding shelf (¶ [0184] describing the shelf being a container with an open top, which would include walls protruding at the perimeter; NOTE: fall prevention is an intended outcome of the protrusions, which are taught by Jung et al.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 1. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
wherein the sliding shelf includes a fall preventing wall protruding upward from a rear surface of the sliding shelf (¶ [0184] describing the shelf being a container with an open top, which would include walls protruding at the perimeter; NOTE: fall prevention is an intended outcome of the protrusions, which are taught by Jung et al.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 1. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al., further discloses:
a shelf link having a first end connected to the door and a second end connected to the sliding shelf, wherein the shelf link is configured to: pull the sliding shelf to extend the sliding shelf from the storage when the door is opened; and push the sliding shelf to retract the sliding shelf into the storage when the door is closed (See Figures 9 and 10 depicting how the door driver and shelf driver are connected via a link that allows for the door driving device 1300 to actuator a rotor 1310 to open the door when sliding the shelf out and close the door when retracting the shelf; see also Figure 13 and ¶ [0244] describing how the rotor of the door driving device operates the shelf carrier to move along the rails).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Lossov et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0033884 to Menz et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Jung et al. further discloses:
shelf rails located at a left side and a right side of the middle shelf, respectively (¶ [0244] describing the left and right rails for the middle shelf).
Jung et al. does not expressly disclose a first elastic sensor protruding from a side surface of the storage, the first elastic sensor being configured to detect the mounting of the middle shelf by being retracted when the middle shelf is mounted in the shelf rails.
Lossov et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a sensor to detect when shelves have been inserted into a storage space on a robot and to operate the door modules to provide access or deny access based on the detection of the insertion of the shelves (¶ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate sensor to detect the insertion of the shelves, as taught by Lossov et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in detecting where the shelf has been inserted relative to other shelves to determine the size of the storage spaces and operate the doors according to that size (Lossov et al. at ¶¶ [0027], [0028]).
Menz et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of pressure sensors, or elastic sensor to detect shelf placement in a robot (¶¶ [0074], [0075]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate the use of an elastic sensor, as taught by Menz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in detecting where the shelf has been inserted relative to other shelves to determine the size of the storage spaces and operate the doors according to that size (Menz et al. at ¶ [0074]). Furthermore, use of an elastic sensor would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art to be simple substitution of one known sensor for another known sensor resulting in the predictable outcome of sensing when a shelf is inserted into the storage space. MPEP § 2143(I).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations claim 3. Jung et al., as modified by Lossov et al. and Menz et al., further discloses:
wherein the door includes:
an upper door configured to open and close the upper storage section (Figure 5 depicting upper door 1200A); and
a lower door configured to open and close the lower storage section (Figure 5 depicting lower door 1200B), and wherein the controller is further configured to:
operate the upper door and the lower door individually when the first elastic sensor detects the middle shelf (¶ [0189] describing operating the doors independently); and
extend the sliding shelf when only the lower door is opened (¶ [0265] describing operating the shelf driving device only after opening the door).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Lossov et al., as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0312516 to Heydel et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5.
Neither Jung et al. nor Lossov et al. expressly discloses wherein the shelf driver is a rack and pinion gear.
Heydel et al., solving the same problem, teaches use of a rack and pinion drive system on automated trackable shelves (¶ [0011] describing the rack and pinion system of the shelf driver device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate a rack and pinion drive system, as taught by Heydel et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in creating a particularly quiet electromechanical actuator that moves the shelf (Heydel et al. at ¶ [0011]). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the rack and pinion system taught by Heydel et al. to be an obvious variant of the linear actuator drive system taught by Jung et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Lossov et al., as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0305679 to Li et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8.
Neither Jung et al. nor Lossov et al. expressly disclose a waterproofing wall protruding around the driving hole of the storage base.
Li et al., solving the same problem, teaches waterproofing a drive hole of robot driving device (Figure 10 and ¶ [0043] describing the waterproof piece covering the shaft hole of the driving device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate waterproofing the shaft drive hole of the driving device, as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the storage cavity from being invaded by water vapor entering the shaft hole (Li et al. at ¶ [0042]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Lossov et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0353858 to Itozawa et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jung et al. and Lossov et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Jung et al. further discloses:
a sensor located inside the storage overlapping the partition and detecting objects to avoid (¶ [0087] describing the sensor detecting objects/obstacles around the robot; see also ¶¶ [0123], [0124], [0127] describing same).
Neither Jung et al. and Lossov et al. expressly disclose use of a camera or extend the sliding shelf when there is no obstacle within the extension range of the sliding shelf.
Itozawa et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a camera inside a robot to detect objects within the range of an extendable shelf to avoid the object, which means only extending the shelf when the obstacle is not detected (¶¶ [0035] – [0039] describing use of the camera to collect images of potential obstacles within the shelf’s range).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate a camera in place of Jung et al.’s LIDAR to detect the objects, and to determine whether an object is within the range of the shelf, as taught by Itozawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in avoiding the obstacle while extending the shelf to collect an article (Itozawa et al. at ¶ [0039]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Itozawa et al.
Regarding claim 20, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 19. Jung et al. further discloses:
a sensor located inside the storage overlapping the partition and detecting objects to avoid (¶ [0087] describing the sensor detecting objects/obstacles around the robot; see also ¶¶ [0123], [0124], [0127] describing same).
Jung et al. does not expressly disclose use of a camera or extend the sliding shelf when there is no obstacle within the extension range of the sliding shelf.
Itozawa et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a camera inside a robot to detect objects within the range of an extendable shelf to avoid the object, which means only extending the shelf when the obstacle is not detected (¶¶ [0035] – [0039] describing use of the camera to collect images of potential obstacles within the shelf’s range).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate a camera in place of Jung et al.’s LIDAR to detect the objects, and to determine whether an object is within the range of the shelf, as taught by Itozawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in avoiding the obstacle while extending the shelf to collect an article (Itozawa et al. at ¶ [0039]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0305679 to Li et al.
Regarding claim 22, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
Jung et al. does not expressly disclose a waterproofing wall protruding around the driving hole of the storage base.
Li et al., solving the same problem, teaches waterproofing a drive hole of robot driving device (Figure 10 and ¶ [0043] describing the waterproof piece covering the shaft hole of the driving device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate waterproofing the shaft drive hole of the driving device, as taught by Li et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the storage cavity from being invaded by water vapor entering the shaft hole (Li et al. at ¶ [0042]).
Double Patenting
Claims 3 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/647,980 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application contains each and every limitation of claim 3 of the present application, and claim 2 of the reference application contains each and every limitation of claim 4 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666