DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final communication is in response to Application No. 18/650,120 filed 4/30/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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, 10, and 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/617,629 (hereinafter “629”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The scope of the independent claims in “629” include a “wearable device is configured to generate an inertial sensing data corresponding to a user, and the wearable device comprises a haptic feedback device…perform hand gesture tracking…determining whether a virtual object associated with a haptic feedback interaction is contacted based on the hand gesture tracking…triggering the haptic feedback device of the wearable device”.
The scope of the instant independent claims consists of those features (determining a hand’s “contact” with a virtual object is at least determining interaction information / relative position between a physical object and a target object and providing vibration feedback accordingly) and is therefore, merely a broadening of the claims of “629” which is obvious to try.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,068,058 (hereinafter “058”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The scope of the independent claims in “058” include “identifying a first simulated object in the content, the first simulated object corresponding to an interface device, wherein a movement of the interface device in the content corresponds to a movement of the first simulated object in the content…identifying an interaction event occurring between the first simulated object and a second simulated object in the content…determining a basic vibration pattern with a first waveform from the plurality of basic vibration patterns according to the interaction event…inducing a haptic feedback according to the basic vibration pattern, wherein the interface device comprises a motion sensor configured to detect a spatial orientation of the interface device…interaction events is a collision event between the first simulated object and the second simulated object…”
The scope of the instant independent claims consists of those features (determining an interface device “collision” with a second simulated object is at least determining interaction information / relative position between a physical object and a target object and providing vibration feedback accordingly) and is therefore, merely a broadening of the claims of “629” which is obvious to try.
Note
Cheng (US 11,983,321 B1) was also considered for double patenting; however, vibration type haptic feedback is distinguished from ultrasonic type haptic feedback in the claims and specification at least at col 3, lines 45-62.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly in claims 4, 6, 11, 14, 16 and 20), “number of the physical object interacting with the target object” in lines 8-9 is unclear. Based on the grammatical structure of this phrase, it is not clear whether “number” is to be treated as a label or a numerical digit. The physical object is introduced as a singular item; therefore, multiple physical objects would lack antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly in claim 16), “wherein the greater the strength of the vibration feedback is, the less the number is” is unclear. Claim 1 indicates that the vibration feedback is responsive to the number. The language of this claim indicates the number is responsive to the vibration feedback, which is conflicting.
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly in claim 17), “wherein the greater the strength of the vibration feedback is, the smaller the angle is” is unclear. Lines 1-6 of this claim indicate the vibration feedback is responsive to the angle, however, lines 6-7 read as if the angle is responsive to the vibration feedback, which is conflicting.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaughn (US 2018/0001192 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vaughn teaches a somatosensory feedback method, applicable to a somatosensory feedback system. More specifically, a system for receiving haptic (vibration) feedback when a physical body part interacts with virtual objects (Vaughn, (abstract), [0023], [0029]-[0031]).
and comprising: obtaining information of interaction between a target object in an immersive environment and a physical object operable by a user in a real-world environment according to sense data. More specifically, sensors within haptic devices worn or held by users are used to determine motion of users (Vaughn, [0023]). A process for receiving haptic feedback indicating whether a user virtually “catches” a “thrown” virtual object is described at least in Figure 16. Trajectory information of a virtual projectile is received in step 1302 and physical body part position information is determined in step 1304 (Vaughn, [0026], [0068]).
wherein the information of interaction comprises at least one of a relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object, a force applying direction of the physical object, a moving direction of the target object, and a number of the physical object interacting with the target object. More specifically, trajectory information (moving direction) includes a direction, speed, and end-of-path of a virtual projectile (target object) (Vaughn, [0068]). At step 1306, the trajectory of the virtual object is compared to the position of the body parts (Vaughn, [0026], [0068], relative position/moving direction, whether the virtual object will be caught by the physical hands).
and providing a vibration feedback for the physical object according to the information of interaction. More specifically, at steps 1308-1316, variable strength haptic feedback is received to indicate to the user how well the virtual object is lined up with the user’s hands as well as when the virtual object is caught (Vaughn, [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the information of interaction between the target object and the physical object comprises: determining the relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object by using the sense data; and determining the force applying direction of the physical object and the moving direction of the target object according to the relative position. More specifically, the trajectory of the virtual object is compared to the physical body part. The trajectory information includes/is based on propelling motion performed by a throwing user which in turn includes a direction and magnitude of acceleration/speed/velocity of the virtual projectile/object factoring in mass of the virtual object and gravity, construed as force (Vaughn, [0024], [0035], [0048]-[0049], [0059], [0063], [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 2, wherein determining the relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object by using the sense data comprises: calculating pose data of the physical object from the sense data; and using the pose data of the physical object and pose data of the target object to determine the relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object. More specifically, trajectory (pose) information of a virtual projectile is received in step 1302 and physical body part position (pose) information is determined in step 1304 (Vaughn, [0026], [0068]). The trajectory information includes a direction, speed, and end-of-path of a virtual projectile (Vaughn, [0068]). At step 1306, the trajectory of the virtual object is compared to the position of the body parts (Vaughn, [0026], [0068], relative position/moving direction, whether the virtual object will be caught by the physical hands).
Regarding claim 5, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 2, wherein determining the relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object by using the sense data comprises: calculating pose data of a peripheral device of a multi-device system, which is arranged on the physical object, from the sense data; transforming the pose data of the peripheral device by preset transformation data, to generate pose data of the physical object; and using the pose data of the physical object and pose data of the target object to determine the relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object. More specifically, the haptic device, which, in addition to providing the haptic feedback, determines position and motion signals of body parts, and could be peripherals in the form of wrist bands, gloves, and wands (Vaughn, [0023]-[0024]). Offsets related to the peripherals size and shape can be used to calculate the position of the body part such as a hand (Vaughn, [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, wherein providing the vibration feedback for the physical object according to the information of interaction comprises: determining a strength of the vibration feedback according to an angle between the force applying direction of the physical object and the moving direction of the target object, wherein the greater the strength of the vibration feedback is, the smaller the angle is. More specifically, Figures 7-12 depict the how the strength of the haptic feedback is affected by the alignment of a “catching” user with the trajectory of the virtual object. Figure 7 shows the most misalignment at a specific an angle with Figure 8 depicting the resultant lessor strength of haptic feedback 638 at the end of the response scale 630. Figures 9 and 10 show the angle getting closer to appropriate for catching the virtual object as well as resultant increase in the strength of the haptic feedback. Figures 11 and 12 show that the alignment between the trajectory of the virtual object and the “catching” user is sufficient to catch the virtual object and therefore, outputs the highest strength haptic feedback (Vaughn, Figures 7-12, [0051]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, further comprising: by a motion sensor of the somatosensory feedback system, generating motion data related to a peripheral device of a multi-device system, which is arranged on the physical object, as the sense data. More specifically, multiple haptic devices 106 and 108 for multiple users, which, in addition to providing the haptic feedback, determines position and motion signals of physical body parts, and could be peripherals in the form of wrist bands, gloves, and wands (Vaughn, [0023]-[0024]). The motion sensing of the haptic devices is done by gyroscopic sensors, accelerometers, etc. (Vaughn, 0027). Offsets related to the peripherals size and shape can be used to calculate the position of the body part such as a hand (Vaughn, [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, further comprising: by a motion sensor of the somatosensory feedback system, generating motion data related to the physical object as the sense data. More specifically, multiple haptic devices 106 and 108 for multiple users, which, in addition to providing the haptic feedback, determines position and motion signals of physical body parts, and could be peripherals in the form of wrist bands, gloves, and wands (Vaughn, [0023]-[0024]). The motion sensing of the haptic devices is done by gyroscopic sensors, accelerometers, etc. (Vaughn, 0027). Offsets related to the peripherals size and shape can be used to calculate the position of the body part such as a hand (Vaughn, [0034]).
Regarding claims 11-13, 15, 17, and 18, these claims recite the somatosensory feedback system that performs the steps of the somatosensory feedback method of claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 8, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites the non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program to execute the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
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(s) 4, 10, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0103971 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the information of interaction between the target object and the physical object comprises: determining the relative position of the physical object with respect to the target object by using the sense data. More specifically, trajectory information of a virtual projectile is received in step 1302 and physical body part position information is determined in step 1304 (Vaughn, [0026], [0068]). The trajectory information includes a direction, speed, and end-of-path of a virtual projectile (Vaughn, [0068]). At step 1306, the trajectory of the virtual object is compared to the position of the body parts (Vaughn, [0026], [0068], relative position/moving direction, whether the virtual object will be caught by the physical hands).
However, Vaughn may not explicitly teach every aspect of
determining the number of the physical object interacting with the target object according to the relative position.
Lee discloses providing realistic feedback during contact with a virtual object. The method includes forming a plurality of physics particles to be distributed and arranged in a virtual hand model, detecting whether a physics particle of the virtual hand model contacts the virtual object and, recognizing the position of the physics particle that contacts the virtual object and transmitting vibration to a finger corresponding to the position when determining that the physics particle of the virtual hand model contacts the virtual object, wherein an intensity of the vibration is determined depending on the number of the physics particles that contact the virtual object and a penetration depth when the physics particle and the virtual object contact each other (Lee, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Vaughn and Lee that a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object would include determining a number of physical objects interacting with the target object. With Vaughn and Lee disclosing a user interacting with virtual objects and receiving variable vibration feedback accordingly, and with Lee additionally suggesting determining a number of physical positions on a hand interacting with the target object, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object would include determining a number of physical objects interacting with the target object in order to provide variable vibration in accordance with how much of a user’s body is making contact with a virtual object providing a sense of realism. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object.
Regarding claim 10, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of further comprising: by a camera of the somatosensory feedback system, generating image data related to the physical object as the sense data.
Lee discloses providing realistic feedback during contact with a virtual object. The method includes forming a plurality of physics particles to be distributed and arranged in a virtual hand model, detecting whether a physics particle of the virtual hand model contacts the virtual object and, recognizing the position of the physics particle that contacts the virtual object and transmitting vibration to a finger corresponding to the position when determining that the physics particle of the virtual hand model contacts the virtual object, wherein an intensity of the vibration is determined depending on the number of the physics particles that contact the virtual object and a penetration depth when the physics particle and the virtual object contact each other (Lee, abstract). The image of an actual hand of a user, and subsequently, at least movement, speed, direction, position, shape, and size of the hand is captured with a camera (Lee, [0024]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Vaughn and Lee that a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object would include sensing the physical object using an image generated from a camera. With Vaughn and Lee disclosing a user interacting with virtual objects and receiving variable vibration feedback accordingly, and with Lee additionally suggesting sensing the physical object using an image generated from a camera, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object would include sensing the physical object using an image generated from a camera in order to reduce the amount of hardware sensors needed for determining hand movement, direction and speed. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, these claims recite the somatosensory feedback system that performs the steps of the somatosensory feedback method of claims 4 and 10, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn, in view of Lee, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2019/0278372 A1, hereinafter “Nakagawa”)
Regarding claim 6, Vaughn teaches the somatosensory feedback method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein providing the vibration feedback for the physical object according to the information of interaction comprises: determining a strength of the vibration feedback according to the number of the physical object interacting with the target object.
Lee discloses providing realistic feedback during contact with a virtual object. The method includes forming a plurality of physics particles to be distributed and arranged in a virtual hand model, detecting whether a physics particle of the virtual hand model contacts the virtual object and, recognizing the position of the physics particle that contacts the virtual object and transmitting vibration to a finger corresponding to the position when determining that the physics particle of the virtual hand model contacts the virtual object, wherein an intensity of the vibration is determined depending on the number of the physics particles that contact the virtual object and a penetration depth when the physics particle and the virtual object contact each other (Lee, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Vaughn and Lee that a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object would include determining a number of physical objects interacting with the target object. With Vaughn and Lee disclosing a user interacting with virtual objects and receiving variable vibration feedback accordingly, and with Lee additionally suggesting determining a number of physical positions on a hand interacting with the target object, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object would include determining a number of physical objects interacting with the target object in order to provide variable vibration in accordance with how much of a user’s body is making contact with a virtual object providing a sense of realism. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting the interaction of a physical object with a virtual target object.
However, Vaughn and Lee may not explicitly teach every aspect of
wherein the greater the strength of the vibration feedback is, the less the number is.
Nakagawa discloses a hand-held controller device for exchanging information with an information processing apparatus. The controller provides various intensity vibration as feedback for the user when signaled by the information processing apparatus (Nakagawa, abstract). The controller’s reception section 41 receives signals for providing vibration at certain intensities, the controller’s acquisition section 42 receives signals regarding whether one or more fingers are in contact with the controller, and the controller’s correction section 43 modifies the vibration intensity according to how many fingers are in contact with the controller (Nakagawa, [0035]-[0037], Figures 4). Correction rate is a percentage of the total intensity received in the reception section and because it is multiplied. The higher number of fingers not contacting the controller, the higher the correction rate, which results in the output of higher intensity vibration. In other words, when more fingers are contacting the controller, the output is a lower intensity vibration comparatively (Nakagawa, [0038]-[0040]). The logic of Nakagawa is the idea that as less fingers are in contact with the controller/haptic device, the vibration intensity should be higher than when more fingers are in contact with controller/haptic device. This ensures that when less of the hand is in contact with an object generating vibration, the experience can be stable/maintained as much as possible (Nakagawa, [0005], [0059], [0082], [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Vaughn and Lee with Nakagawa that a method for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting a number of a body parts interacting with an object would include a greater strength of vibration being associated with a lesser number of physical objects interacting with the target object. With Vaughn, Lee, and Nakagawa disclosing a user interacting with objects and receiving variable vibration feedback accordingly, with Lee and Nakagawa counting the number of fingers interacting with objects to determine the strength of the vibration, and with Nakagawa additionally suggesting a smaller number of fingers results in a greater strength of vibration, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a od for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting a number of a body parts interacting with an object would include a greater strength of vibration being associated with a lesser number of physical objects interacting with the target object in order to provide variable vibration in a way that ensures a user has a stable experience with reduced points of contact with an object providing feedback. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this od for providing variable strength vibration feedback in an immersive environment reflecting a number of a body parts interacting with an object.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites the somatosensory feedback system that performs the steps of the somatosensory feedback method of claim 6, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Ghanchi (US 10,265,627 B2) - varied haptic feedback according to whether a user, holding a virtual accessory (e.g., “a bat”), makes contact with a virtual object (e.g., “a ball”) according to the determined swing motion of the virtual accessory and the trajectory of the virtual object. Haptic feedback is varied based on how well the virtual object is contacted and/or the determined location of contact on the virtual accessory.
Geisert (US 2024/0194040 A1) – varied haptic feedback according an angle of a user approaching a virtual object or vice versa.
Rhin (US 2019/0391647 A1) - varied haptic feedback according the number of fingers of a user and/or force of a user interacting with a virtual object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171