LIGHTING DEVICE AND VEHICLE LAMP HAVING SAME

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 9/24/2026 has been entered. The drawings were received on 9/24/2026. These drawings are in acceptable form, but an objection to the Drawings is presented below. The objections over the Drawings presented in the Office Action mailed 6/30/2026 pertaining to the limitations of Claims 7 and 17 have been withdrawn based on the Drawings filed 9/24/2026. The objections to Claim 15 have not been withdrawn. Further discussion is provided below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions being closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes of Claim 15 lines 3-4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412) and Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154). With regards to Claim 1, Chen et al. discloses a lighting device comprising: a substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a light source [110] disposed on the substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a layer [140] disposed on the substrate [112] and the light source [110] (see paragraphs 41 and 45 and Figures 1A and 1B; the layer [140] is substantially disposed on the light source [110] and substrate [112] as seen in at least Figure 1B); and a reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46) disposed on the layer [140] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B) and having a plurality of holes [132] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B), wherein the reflective layer [130] includes a reflective film (see paragraph 46), wherein light generated from the light source [110] is emitted through the holes [132] in the reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46), wherein the light source [110] overlaps the reflective layer [130] and the substrate [112] in a vertical direction (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the vertical direction is a direction from a lower surface of the substrate [112] toward an upper surface of the reflective layer [130] (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein each of the plurality of holes [132] penetrates from an upper surface to a lower surface of the reflective film [130] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B; the holes [132] are through-holes), wherein the reflective film [130] has regions in which densities of the plurality of holes [132] are different from each other (see paragraph 46 and Figures 1A and 1B; the arrangement of through-holes [132] as seen in Figures 1A and 1B areas in which densities are different from each other), and wherein a region with a lower density of holes [132] among the regions is closer to the light source [122] than a region with a higher density of holes [132] (see Figures 1A and 1B). Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the layer is a resin layer. Jeong et al. teaches a resin layer [230] disposed on the substrate [210] and the light source [230] (see paragraph 48 and Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layer of Chen et al. to be a resin layer, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to substantially encapsulate the light sources (see Jeong et al. paragraph 48). Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer includes a transparent film disposed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, wherein the transparent film is in contact with at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film and covers the plurality of holes of the reflective film, and wherein a surface of the transparent film facing each of the plurality of holes is planar throughout a region vertically overlapping the corresponding hole. Watanabe et al. teaches the reflective layer [20A] (see paragraph 31 and Figures 1B and 2B) includes a transparent film [21] disposed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film [22] (see paragraph 33 and 36 Figures 1B and 2B), wherein the transparent film [21] is in contact with at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film [22] and covers the plurality of holes of the reflective film [22] (see paragraphs 36 and 51 and Figures 1B and 2B), and wherein a surface of the transparent film [21] facing each of the plurality of holes is planar throughout a region vertically overlapping the corresponding hole (see Figures 1B and 2B; the transparent film [21] is substantially planar throughout a region vertically overlapping each hole). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to include a transparent film disposed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, the transparent film is in contact with at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film and covers the plurality of holes of the reflective film, and a surface of the transparent film facing each of the plurality of holes is planar throughout a region vertically overlapping the corresponding hole, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide each of a light transmitting side and a light reflective side to the reflective layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 31). With regards to Claim 2, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the reflective film is made of a metal material. Watanabe et al. teaches the reflective film [22] is made of a metal material (see paragraph 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective film of Chen et al. to be made of a metal material as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a mask vapor deposition technique in forming the reflective layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 34). With regards to Claim 3, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. further discloses the regions of the reflective film [130] have different intervals between the holes [132] (see paragraphs 46 and Figures 1A and 1B). With regards to Claim 4, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 3. Chen et al. further discloses a region with a larger interval between holes [132] among the regions is close to the light source [110] than a region with a smaller interval between holes (see Figures 1A and 1B). With regards to Claim 5, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. further discloses the regions of the reflective film [130] have different sizes of the holes [132] (see paragraph 46). With regards to Claim 6, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 5. Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose a region with smaller sized holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger sized holes. Jeong et al. teaches a region with smaller sized holes [267] among the regions is closer to the light source [220] than a region with larger sized holes [267] (see paragraph 125 and Figure 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes of the reflective film of Chen et al. such that a region with smaller sized holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger sized holes, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a light transmittance at areas more distant from the light source (see Jeong et al. paragraph 125). With regards to Claim 8, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. further discloses the reflective film [130] includes the regions where the densities of the holes [132] gradually increases as they get farther away from the light source [110] (see Figure 1A). With regards to Claim 10, Chen et al. and Jeong et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. further discloses the reflective film [130] is spaced apart from the resin layer [140] (see paragraph 48; an air gap [172] can be formed between the reflective film [130] and layer [140], thereby substantially the reflective film [130] is spaced apart from the layer [140] by at least air gap [172]). Chen et al. does not disclose the transparent film has no hole in regions corresponding to the plurality of holes of the reflective film. Watanabe et al. teaches the transparent film [21] has no hole in regions corresponding to the plurality of holes of the reflective film [22] (see paragraph 36 and Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. such that the transparent film has no hole in regions corresponding to the plurality of holes in the reflective film, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide each of a light transmitting side and a light reflective side to the reflective layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 31). With regards to Claim 11, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less. Watanabe et al. teaches the reflective layer [22] has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less (see paragraphs 36 and 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to have a thickness of 0.6 mm or less, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to form the reflective layer as a thin metal layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraphs 34, 36, and 37) to reduce a thickness of the lighting device (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 106). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412) and Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154), further in view of Tanaka et al. (CN 101978210; please see attached translation for reference to paragraphs). With regards to Claim 7, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the holes has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces. Tanaka et al. teaches at least one of the holes [21] has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces (see paragraph 58 and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the holes of Chen et al. to have different sizes on upper and lower surfaces, as taught by Tanaka et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce brightness differences across the lighting device (see Tanaka paragraph 59). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412) and Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154), further in view of Saito et al. (US 2018/0299730). With regards to Claim 12, Chen et al., Jeong et al., and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the plurality of holes has a diameter or width of 90 μm or less. Saito et al. teaches at least one of the plurality of holes [24] (see paragraph 39) has a diameter or width of 90 μm or less (see paragraph 42 and Figure 1; the holes [24] may have a diameter or width of 0.1 mm or less, which substantially includes a diameter of 90 μm or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the plurality of holes of Chen et al. to have a diameter or width of 90 μm or less as taught by Saito et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to depolarize the light (see Saito et al. paragraph 12). Claims 13, 14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154). With regards to Claim 13, Chen et al. discloses a lighting device comprising: a substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a light source [110] disposed on the substrate [112] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B); a light transmitting layer [140] disposed on the substrate [112] and the light source [110] (see paragraphs 41 and 45 and Figures 1A and 1B; the layer [140] is substantially disposed on the light source [110] and substrate [112] as seen in at least Figure 1B); and a reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46) disposed on the light transmitting layer [140] (see paragraph 41 and Figures 1A and 1B) and having a plurality of holes [132] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B), wherein the reflective layer [130] includes a reflective film (see paragraph 46), wherein light generated from the light source [110] is emitted through the holes [132] in the reflective layer [130] (see paragraph 46), wherein the light source [110] overlaps the reflective layer [130] and the substrate [112] in a vertical direction (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the vertical direction is a direction from a lower surface of the substrate [112] toward an upper surface of the reflective layer [130] (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein each of the plurality of holes [132] penetrates from the upper surface to the lower surface of the reflective film [130] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1B; the holes [132] are through-holes), and wherein the reflective film [130] has regions in which densities of the plurality of holes [132] are different from each other (see paragraph 46 and Figures 1A and 1B; the arrangement of through-holes [132] as seen in Figures 1A and 1B areas in which densities are different from each other). Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer includes a transparent film disposed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, wherein the transparent film is in contact with at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film and covers the plurality of holes of the reflective film, and wherein a surface of the transparent film facing each of the plurality of holes is planar throughout a region vertically overlapping the corresponding hole, and the reflective film is made of a metal material. Watanabe et al. teaches the reflective layer [20A] (see paragraph 31 and Figures 1B and 2B) includes a transparent film [21] disposed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film [22] (see paragraph 33 and 36 Figures 1B and 2B), wherein the transparent film [21] is in contact with at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film [22] and covers the plurality of holes of the reflective film [22] (see paragraphs 36 and 51 and Figures 1B and 2B), and wherein a surface of the transparent film [21] facing each of the plurality of holes is planar throughout a region vertically overlapping the corresponding hole (see Figures 1B and 2B; the transparent film [21] is substantially planar throughout a region vertically overlapping each hole), and wherein the reflective film [22] is made of a metal material (see paragraph 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to include a transparent film disposed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, the transparent film is in contact with at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film and covers the plurality of holes of the reflective film, and a surface of the transparent film facing each of the plurality of holes is planar throughout a region vertically overlapping the corresponding hole, and the reflective film is made of a metal material, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide each of a light transmitting side and a light reflective side to the reflective layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 31), and to utilize a mask vapor deposition technique in forming the reflective layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 34). With regards to Claim 14, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. further discloses a region with a lower density of holes [132] among the regions is closer to the light source [122] than a region with a higher density of holes [132] (see Figures 1A and 1B). With regards to Claim 20, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. does not disclose the reflective layer has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less. Watanabe et al. teaches the reflective layer [22] has a thickness of 0.6 mm or less (see paragraphs 36 and 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. to have a thickness of 0.6 mm or less, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to form the reflective layer as a thin metal layer (see Watanabe et al. paragraphs 34, 36, and 37) to reduce a thickness of the lighting device (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 106). With regards to Claim 21, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. does not disclose a thickness of the transparent film in regions vertically overlapping the plurality of holes is equal to a thickness of the transparent film in regions between the plurality of holes. Watanabe et al. teaches a thickness of the transparent film [21] in regions vertically overlapping the plurality of holes is equal to a thickness of the transparent film [21] in regions between the plurality of holes (see Figures 1B and 2B; the thickness of the transparent film [21] is substantially consistent along a length thereof, thereby substantially a thickness of the transparent film in regions vertically overlapping the plurality of holes is equal to a thickness of the transparent film in regions between the plurality of holes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. such that a thickness of the transparent film in regions vertically overlapping the plurality of holes is equal to a thickness of the transparent film in regions between the plurality of holes, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a transparent sheet as the transparent film (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 36). Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. do not explicitly disclose the reflective film is the same thickness as or thinner than a thickness of the transparent film. However, Watanabe et al. does disclose the reflective film [22] having a thickness of 20 μm, and the transparent film being a sheet such as Lumirror T60 manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc. (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 36), and forming a combined optical sheet having a transparent side and a reflective side to reduce a thickness of the lighting device (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 106). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form the reflective layer such that the reflective film is the same thickness as or thinner than a thickness of the transparent film in order to reduce a thickness of the lighting device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective layer of Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. such that the reflective film is the same thickness as or thinner than a thickness of the transparent film. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a combined optical sheet having a transparent side formed of a Lumirror T60 and a reflective side to reduce a thickness of the lighting device (see Watanabe et al. paragraphs 36 and 106). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154), further in view of Sato (WO 2007086347; please see attached translation for reference to pages). With regards to Claim 15, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. further discloses the regions of the reflective film [130] have different intervals between the holes [132] (see paragraph 46 and Figures 1A and 1B). Chen et al. does not disclose a region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes. Sato teaches a region with a smaller interval between holes [65] among the regions is closer to the light source (comprising the light source [2] aligned with line [68], see Figures 10A and 10B) than a region with a larger interval between holes [65] (see bottom half of page 18 and Figures 10A and 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes of the reflective film of Chen et al. such that a region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes as taught by Chen et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to emit light as a flat intensity as a whole (see Sato bottom of page 18). Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154), further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2011/0051412). With regards to Claim 16, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. does not disclose the regions of the reflective film have different sizes of the holes, wherein a region with smaller holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger holes. Jeong et al. teaches the regions of the reflective film [260] have different sizes of the holes [267] (see paragraph 125 and Figure 25), wherein a region with smaller holes [267] among the regions is closer to the light source [220] than a region with larger holes [267] (see Figure 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes of the reflective film of Chen et al. such that the regions of the reflective film have different sizes of the holes, wherein a region with smaller holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with larger holes, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a light transmittance at areas more distant from the light source (see Jeong et al. paragraph 125). With regards to Claim 18, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose the reflective film includes the regions where a size of the holes increases as they get farther away from the light source. Jeong et al. teaches the reflective film [260] includes the regions where a size of the holes [267] increases as they get farther away from the light source [220] (see paragraph 125 and Figure 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective film of Chen et al. such that the reflective film includes the regions where a size of the holes increases as they get farther away from the light source, as taught by Jeong et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a light transmittance at areas more distant from the light source (see Jeong et al. paragraph 125). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0265549) as modified by Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012154), further in view of Tanaka et al. (CN 101978210; please see attached translation for reference to paragraphs). With regards to Claim 17, Chen et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose the lighting device as discussed above with regards to Claim 13. Chen et al. does not disclose at least one of the holes has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces. Tanaka et al. teaches at least one of the holes [21] has different sizes on upper and lower surfaces (see paragraph 58 and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the holes of Chen et al. to have different sizes on upper and lower surfaces, as taught by Tanaka et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce brightness differences across the lighting device (see Tanaka paragraph 59). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to Claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the transparent film is in contact with the lower surface of the reflective film, and the reflective film is spaced apart from the light transmitting layer, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim from which Claim 19 depends. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the applicant’s argument that the limitations of Claim 15 are shown in Figure 1 because Figure 1 shows the plurality of holes [155] disposed in the first region [A1] and the third region [A3], and the interval between adjacent holes [155] in the third region [A1] is different from the interval between adjacent holes [155] in the third region [A3], the examiner notes that Claim 15 recites on lines 3-4 “a region with a smaller interval between holes among the regions is closer to the light source than a region with a larger intervals between holes”. Figure 1 does not appear to show a region with a smaller interval between holes being closer to the light source than a region with a larger interval between holes. Therefore, the above Drawing Objection has not been overcome. With regards to the applicant’s argument pertaining to amended Claim 1 and to Claim 13 that Chen and Jeong et al. do not teach or suggest the reflective layer includes a transparent film and the transparent film is disposed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of the reflective film, and Sumitani does not disclose the claimed transparent film covering the plurality of holes, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Chen et al. and Jeong et al. in view of Watanabe et al., utilized herein to teach the amended limitations of Claim 1. Prior Art Referral The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Xie (CN 112987404), which discloses at least a reflective layer including a transparent film disposed on a side of a reflective film. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m. 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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. /ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875