Patent Application 18343095 - HAPTIC SYSTEM FOR ROBOT TELEOPERATION OF A - Rejection

Patent Application 18343095 - HAPTIC SYSTEM FOR ROBOT TELEOPERATION OF A

Title: HAPTIC SYSTEM FOR ROBOT TELEOPERATION OF A REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE

Application Information

• Invention Title: HAPTIC SYSTEM FOR ROBOT TELEOPERATION OF A REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE
• Application Number: 18343095
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-06-28T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-06-28T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 701
• National Sub-Class: 002000
• Examiner Employee Number: 96915
• Art Unit: 3663
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 7225404🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities 
In re claim 10; “…the first sensor array comprises a first sensor array of vibratory sensors, wherein the second sensor array comprises a second sensor array of vibratory sensors” seems to contain a typographical error in that “a first sensor array” and “a second sensor array” have been previously recited within the features of claim 7. It is suggested that the claim language be changed to recite; “…the first sensor array comprises vibratory sensors, wherein the second sensor array comprises vibratory sensors”. Appropriate correction is required. 
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 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) 1-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Lebo (US-20210371067-A1). 
In re claim 1. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses A system for robot teleoperation comprising: an underwater robot vehicle ([0003] Underwater vehicles may be deployed in various underwater environments for exploration, research, investigation, commercial, law enforcement, military, and other purposes. These vehicles may include, without limitation, unmanned underwater vehicles, remotely operated underwater vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles, and/or other maritime vehicles.); 
a subsea sensing module associated with the underwater robot vehicle ([0092] Navigation of the underwater vehicle 100 may utilize one or more navigation sensors, including, without limitation, inertial sensors (including attitude and heading reference system (AHRS), inertial navigation system (INS), etc.), Doppler Velocity Loggers (DVL), acoustic sensors, imagers, Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG), accelerometers, pressure sensors, GPS, sound velocity sensor (SVS), Conductivity and Temperature Sensor (CT), Forward Looking Sonar (FLS), and/or the like.); 
a workplace module ([0140-0142] computer system 1200, environment transducer devices); and 
a user interface ([0139] In one implementation, the input devices convert a human-generated signal, such as, human voice, physical movement, physical touch or pressure, and/or the like, into electrical signals as input data into the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208…The input device may be another type of user input device including, but not limited to: direction and selection control devices, such as a mouse, a trackball, cursor direction keys, a joystick, and/or a wheel; one or more sensors, such as a camera, a microphone, a positional sensor, an orientation sensor, a gravitational sensor, an inertial sensor, and/or an accelerometer; and/or a touch-sensitive display screen (“touchscreen”).), wherein the subsea sensing module senses an environment of the underwater robot vehicle and provides sensor data to the workplace module ([0140] The environment transducer devices convert one form of energy or signal into another for input into or output from the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208… the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.), wherein the workplace module reproduces the environment ([0140] Further, the environment transducer devices may generate signals to impose some effect on the environment either local to or remote from the example computing device 1200, such as, physical movement of some object (e.g., a mechanical actuator), heating or cooling of a substance, adding a chemical substance, and/or the like.) and instructs the user interface to provide sensory augmentation associated with the environment to an operator ([0139-140] the output devices may convert electrical signals received from computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208 into signals that may be sensed as output by a human, such as sound, light, and/or touch… The output devices may include, without limitation, a display, a touchscreen, a speaker, a tactile and/or haptic output device, and/or the like…).  
In re claim 2. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a robot control module (computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208), wherein the user interface receives input from the operator ([0139] The input device may be an alphanumeric input device, including alphanumeric and other keys for communicating information and/or command selections to the processor 1202 via the I/O port 1208.) and the robot control module controls the underwater robot vehicle according to the input ([0142] The computer system 1200 may include a vehicle sub-systems port for communicating with one or more systems related to the underwater vehicle 100 to control an operation of the underwater vehicle 100 and/or exchange information between the computer system 1200 and one or more sub-systems of the underwater vehicle 100.).  
In re claim 3. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 2, wherein the user interface receives input in as body gestures of the operator, wherein the robot control module controls the underwater robot vehicle according to the body gestures of the operator ([0139] In one implementation, the input devices convert a human-generated signal, such as, human voice, physical movement, physical touch or pressure, and/or the like, into electrical signals as input data into the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208.).  
In re claim 4. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein the subsea sensing module senses hydrodynamic features and temperatures of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle ([0092] Navigation of the underwater vehicle 100 may utilize one or more navigation sensors, including, without limitation, inertial sensors (including attitude and heading reference system (AHRS), inertial navigation system (INS), etc.), Doppler Velocity Loggers (DVL), acoustic sensors, imagers, Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG), accelerometers, pressure sensors, GPS, sound velocity sensor (SVS), Conductivity and Temperature Sensor (CT), Forward Looking Sonar (FLS), and/or the like.).  
In re claim 5. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 4, wherein the user interface provides haptic feedback to the operator ([0139] The output devices may include, without limitation, a display, a touchscreen, a speaker, a tactile and/or haptic output device, and/or the like.)  indicative of hydrodynamic features ([0140]…temperature) of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] The environment transducer devices convert one form of energy or signal into another for input into or output from the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208. ... In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like…).  
In re claim 12. The limitations of claim 12 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 1. 
In re claim 13. The limitations of claim 13 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 2. 
In re claim 14. The limitations of claim 14 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 3. 
In re claim 15. The limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 5. 
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 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.

Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) as applied to claim 5 and 15 above and further in view of Chung (US-20210191400-A1).
In re claim 6. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 5, wherein the hydrodynamic features include movement affecting the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.).  
Lebo lacks the following underlined limitations: 
the hydrodynamic features include water currents affecting the underwater robot vehicle 
Regarding the limitation; Chung (US-20210191400-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, regarding autonomous vessel simulations, a consideration for a [0018] environment information collecting system 120… that monitors the waves and ocean currents (tidal currents) to obtain climate information including monsoon, fog, or thunderstorms, and water surface information such as waves or ocean currents (tidal currents). Chung further discloses wherein the system is configured to calculate [0021] electronic chart information, object information, and water surface information … to construct a virtual reality three-dimensional scene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include wherein hydrodynamic features include water currents with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Chung, for the benefit of providing climate information relative to water based operations wherein weather conditions such as monsoons or thunderstorms can affect water surface conditions such as waves or ocean currents (tidal currents) [0018].  
In re claim 16. The limitations of claim 16 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 6. 
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebo (US-20210371067-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ballard (US-20190278369-A1).
In re claim 7. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises:
a haptic feedback, providing haptic feedback to the operator ([0139] The output devices may include, without limitation, a display, a touchscreen, a speaker, a tactile and/or haptic output device, and/or the like.) reflecting a position and orientation of the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.).  
Lebo lacks the following underlined limitations: 
a body-worn haptic feedback garment comprising a first sensor array disposed across a front side of the operator and a second sensor array disposed across a back side of the operator, wherein the body-worn haptic feedback garment provides haptic feedback to the operator reflecting a position and orientation of the underwater robot vehicle.  
Regarding the limitation; Ballard (US-20190278369-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a body worn haptic feedback garment comprising sensor arrays disposed across a front, back, and side of an operator garment ([0021] The user 100 may receive force feedback that simulates virtual forces in the virtual environment 108 via a plurality of haptic devices that are in communication with the computing system 102. In the depicted example, the user 100 is wearing a haptic vest 130 including a plurality of vibrating components arranged on the front, back, and sides of the user's torso.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include a body-worn haptic feedback garment comprising a first sensor array disposed across a front side of the operator and a second sensor array disposed across a back side of the operator with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ballard, for the benefit of providing more than one set of haptic sensor arrays allowing for individual control instructions to affect a front or back of a user worn haptic garment to function individually according to control operations, such as an instruction to turn force-feedback motors located on the front of the vest with higher intensity and turn force-feedback motors located on the back of the vest with a lower intensity [0043].  
In re claim 8. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 7, wherein the haptic feedback provides haptic feedback to the operator ([0139] The output devices may include, without limitation, a display, a touchscreen, a speaker, a tactile and/or haptic output device, and/or the like.) reflecting hydrodynamic features of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.).  
Lebo lacks the following underlined limitations: 
the body-worn haptic feedback garment provides haptic feedback to the operator reflecting hydrodynamic features of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle
Regarding the limitation; Ballard (US-20190278369-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a body worn haptic feedback garment comprising sensor arrays disposed across a front, back, and side of an operator garment ([0021] The user 100 may receive force feedback that simulates virtual forces in the virtual environment 108 via a plurality of haptic devices that are in communication with the computing system 102. In the depicted example, the user 100 is wearing a haptic vest 130 including a plurality of vibrating components arranged on the front, back, and sides of the user's torso.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include a body-worn haptic feedback garment with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ballard, for the benefit of providing a wearable garment capable of providing haptic feedback according to operational information including a plurality of vibrating components arranged on the front, back, and sides of the user's torso [0021].
In re claim 9. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The system according to claim 8, wherein the user interface further comprises: 
the environment of the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] The environment transducer devices convert one form of energy or signal into another for input into or output from the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208... In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.).  
Lebo lacks the following underlined limitations: 
a virtual reality headset worn by the operator, wherein the virtual reality headset provides a visual indication of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle
Regarding the limitation; Ballard (US-20190278369-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a virtual realty headset worn by the operator ([0016] FIG. 1 shows a user 100 wearing a head-mounted display (HIVID) type virtual-reality computing system 102. The computing system 102 includes a near-eye display 104. The near-eye display 104 is configured to visually present a field of view (FOV) 106 of a virtual environment 108 to the user 100. The virtual environment 108 may simulate a real world and/or an imagined world, allowing the user 100 to interact with that virtualized world.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include a virtual realty headset worn by the operator with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ballard, for the benefit of simulating a real world and/or an imagined world, allowing the user to interact with that virtualized world [0016].  
In re claim 10. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) lacks The system according to claim 8, wherein the first sensor array comprises a first sensor array of vibratory sensors, wherein the second sensor array comprises a second sensor array of vibratory sensors.  
Regarding the limitation; Ballard (US-20190278369-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a body worn haptic feedback garment comprising sensor arrays disposed across a front, back, and side of an operator garment ([0021] The user 100 may receive force feedback that simulates virtual forces in the virtual environment 108 via a plurality of haptic devices that are in communication with the computing system 102. In the depicted example, the user 100 is wearing a haptic vest 130 including a plurality of vibrating components arranged on the front, back, and sides of the user's torso.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include wherein the first sensor array comprises a first sensor array of vibratory sensors and wherein the second sensor array comprises a second sensor array of vibratory sensors with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ballard, for the benefit of providing more than one set of haptic vibrating sensors allowing for individual control instructions to affect a front or back of a user worn haptic garment to function individually according to control operations, such as an instruction to turn force-feedback motors located on the front of the vest with higher intensity and turn force-feedback motors located on the back of the vest with a lower intensity [0043].  
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) and Ballard (US-20190278369-A1), as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Al-Husseiny (US-20200357249-A1).
In re claim 11. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) lacks The system according to claim 10, wherein the first sensor array comprises a series of rows and columns of vibratory sensors and the second sensor array comprises a series of rows and columns of vibratory sensors.  
Regarding the limitation; “…first sensor array … of vibratory sensors and the second sensor array comprises … vibratory sensors”, Ballard (US-20190278369-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a body worn haptic feedback garment comprising sensor arrays disposed across a front, back, and side of an operator garment ([0021] The user 100 may receive force feedback that simulates virtual forces in the virtual environment 108 via a plurality of haptic devices that are in communication with the computing system 102. In the depicted example, the user 100 is wearing a haptic vest 130 including a plurality of vibrating components arranged on the front, back, and sides of the user's torso.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include wherein wherein the first sensor array comprises a first sensor array of vibratory sensors, wherein the second sensor array comprises a second sensor array of vibratory sensors with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ballard, for the benefit of providing more than one set of haptic vibrating sensors allowing for individual control instructions to affect a front or back of a user worn haptic garment to function individually according to control operations, such as an instruction to turn force-feedback motors located on the front of the vest with higher intensity and turn force-feedback motors located on the back of the vest with a lower intensity [0043].  
Regarding the limitation; “…a series of rows and columns of vibratory sensors” Al-Husseiny (US-20200357249-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0035] In FIG. 3A, the at least one haptic sensor 321, which is located on or within the inner surface 320 of haptic garment 300, is illustrated as a plurality of haptic sensors arranged in rows and columns, i.e., in a matrix-style arrangement. Haptic sensors 321 may, e.g., be a plurality of separate haptic sensors, wherein each sensor is configured to measure one or more haptic properties within an area of the user's skin which is covered by the sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include wherein sensors arrays comprises a series of rows and columns of vibratory sensors with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Al-Husseiny, for the benefit of providing an increased area covered by sensors in a matrix-style arrangement [0035], increasing haptic properties felt within an increased area of user’s skin.   
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebo (US-20210371067-A1), as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Ballard (US-20190278369-A1).
In re claim 17. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The method according to claim 12, wherein generating, at the workplace module, instructions for the user interface comprises generating, for the user interface ([0140] The environment transducer devices convert one form of energy or signal into another for input into or output from the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208), haptic feedback ([0139] The output devices may include, without limitation, a display, a touchscreen, a speaker, a tactile and/or haptic output device, and/or the like.) instructions for the user interface based on the sensor data from the subsea sensing module associated with the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.).  
Lebo lacks the following underlined limitations: 
wherein generating, at the workplace module, instructions for the user interface comprises generating, for the user interface using at least one of a game engine or a physics engine, haptic feedback instructions for the user interface based on the sensor data from the subsea sensing module associated with the underwater robot vehicle. 
Regarding the limitation; Ballard (US-20190278369-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for using at least one of a game engine or a physics engine to provide haptic feedback instructions to a user interface ([0017] virtual environment 108 including …mathematical patterns (e.g., physics engine) [0025] FIG. 2 schematically shows an example scenario in which a game engine 200 executable by the computing system 102 of FIG. 1 controls the plurality of haptic devices of FIG. 1 to provide spatialized force feedback that simulates virtual forces in the virtual environment 108...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Lebo to include at least one of a game engine or a physics engine with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Ballard, for the benefit of providing a user feedback within a virtual environment through the use mathematical patterns enabled through the use of a physics/game engine executable by a computing system [0017, 0025].  
In re claim 18. The limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to those disclosed within the features of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same premise, for more information please see in re claim 8. 
In re claim 19. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The method according to claim 18, wherein the simulation ([0139] The output devices may include, without limitation, a display, a touchscreen, a speaker, a tactile and/or haptic output device, and/or the like.) of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle comprises simulation of hydrodynamic properties of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle ([0140] The environment transducer devices convert one form of energy or signal into another for input into or output from the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208. ... In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like…).  
In re claim 20. Lebo (US-20210371067-A1) discloses The method according to claim 19, wherein the simulation of the environment of the underwater robot vehicle further comprises simulation of movement of the underwater robot vehicle through the environment ([0140] The environment transducer devices convert one form of energy or signal into another for input into or output from the computing system 1200 via the I/O port 1208. ... In one implementation, the environment transducer devices sense characteristics or aspects of an environment local to or remote from the computing device 1200, such as, light, sound, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, electric field, chemical properties, physical movement, orientation, acceleration, gravity, and/or the like.).
Conclusion
It should be noted that there exists prior art which is pertinent to significant though unclaimed features of the defined invention or directed to the state of art. The following is a brief description of relevant prior art cited but not applied:
Mikael (US-20230339121-A1) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for local autonomy-based haptic control of robots with the dual-proxy model enables applications in areas such as medical, underwater and space robotics.
Zilles (US-7225404-B1) discloses in a similar invention, a consideration for generating a representation of an object in graphic space, sensing the position of the user in real space and calculating a force to be applied to a user in response to the user's haptic interface and the user's fiducial object. The user's fiducial object represents the location in graphic space at which the user's haptic interface would be located if the haptic interface could not penetrate the surfaces of virtual objects.
See PTO-892: Notice of references cited.  
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.

/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663