DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on September 15, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on September 15, 2026 have been entered.
Claim 16 has been amended.
Claims 3, 6-8 and 10 remain canceled.
Claims 12 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11, 13-14 and 16-17 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 7), filed on 09/15/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 16 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claim addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objection to the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 7), filed on 09/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 7) that Regarding claim 11, Examiner asks how physical dimensions (e.g., height, width and depth) can be calculated using temperature measurements. The answer is that many materials or substances shrink or expand when subjected to varying temperatures. Thus, a dimension such as height, width or depth may be compensated, accounting for the change in size of the object due to a specific change in temperature. Using this temperature compensation, a “true dimension” of an object at a specific reference temperature may be derived. Please see paragraphs [0048]-[0050] for a discussion of temperature compensation.
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner submits that, in light of the original specification, the claimed invention does not clearly describe how this compensation is performed when “the at least one first input signal represents at least one dimension of an observed object, or the at least one dimension of the observed object can be derived from the at least one first input signal” and “the at least one second input signal from an external signal generator represents a temperature measurement value”, as described in the MPEP:
“A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification” (see MPEP 2173.02); and
“During prosecution the Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim … During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311, 110 USPQ2d at 1787 (“[W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b).”) … a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear” (see MPEP 2173.02, section I).
The examiner further submits that applicant’s arguments refer to paragraphs in the specification in which density is temperature compensated, as indicated in the previous office action, however, those paragraphs do not clarify the subject matter of claim 11 as currently claimed.
Moreover, the examiner suggests applicant to either amend the claims in accordance with the original disclosure, or cancel claim 11 (as it was done with claims 12 and 15 in the current response) to avoid potential rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description, as indicated in the MPEP:
“The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 … New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus).” (see MPEP 2163); and
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)” (see MPEP 2163.03).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 7), filed on 09/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered. In view of the cancelation of claims 12 and 15, the rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one first input signal represents at least one dimension of an observed object, or the at least one dimension of the observed object can be derived from the at least one first input signal”, while independent claim 1 recites the “wherein the at least one second input signal from an external signal generator represents a temperature measurement value”, which is unclear as to how the at least one first input signal being a dimension of an observed object is temperature compensated (e.g., how is height, width or depth compensated using temperature measurements).
The original disclosure provides examples of temperature compensation when the first input signal is density (see specification at [0037]-[0038], [0043], [0046], [0048]-[0050]) while also describing the use of object dimensions with flow velocity or transport velocity of a material to obtain a mass of mass flow of the material as output signal (see specification at [0039]-[0040], [0044], [0046]).
For examination purposes, claim language is interpreted as an alternative, in light of the specification details.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11, 13-14 and 16-17 were evaluated for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see bold text):
the limitation “generating an output signal on the basis of the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal, wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to obtain additional information (e.g., using a computing method to manipulate the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal to obtain an output signal, see specification at [0034]). Except for the recitation of the generic computer implementation (e.g., storing computing method in the field device), the limitation in the context of this claim mainly refers to applying mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, the claim recites:
“A field device with a two-wire supply interface, which is suitable for receiving energy via a two-wire system and for signal transmission via the two-wire system, with an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device, with at least one additional interface, which is suitable for signal reception, and with a functional unit or functional group for data and/or signal processing, which is coupled to the two-wire supply interface, the at least one additional interface and the integrated sensor, wherein the at least one additional interface is a two-wire interface, wherein the at least one additional interface has exactly one pair of terminals” which, when considering the claim as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (e.g., a particular machine configuration, see MPEP 2106.05(b)); and
“wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out the following steps:
- receiving at least one first input signal from the integrated sensor,
- receiving at least one second input signal from the at least one additional interface,
wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device,
wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface,
wherein the field device is configured for tapping the at least one second input signal from the one pair of terminals and
wherein the at least one second input signal from an external signal generator represents a temperature measurement value,
wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out a temperature compensation of the at least one first input signal by means of the at least one second input signal during the generation of the output signal” which adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (e.g., storing computing methods), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., functional unit or functional group, external signal generators, see [0029] and [0034]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), while also appending extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, when considered as a whole, is eligible at Prong Two of the Revised Step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Revised Step 2A, see also MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Similarly, independent claim 16 is directed to patent eligible subject matter as explained above with regards to claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11, 13-14 and 17, they were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 13-14 and 16-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1.
Kirkpatrick (US 6574515 B1) discloses:
A field device (Figs. 1 and 2, item 16 – “two-wire field mountable process device”) with a two-wire supply interface (Fig. 2, items 36 and 38 – “loop communicator” and “power module”), which is suitable for receiving energy via a two-wire system (Fig. 1, item 14 – “two-wire process loop”) and for signal transmission via the two-wire system (col. 3, lines 26-39, 58, 63-65; col. 4, lines 54-58: a two-wire field mountable process device is provided including input/output channels, with power management and communication being performed through a two-wire process loop (see also col. 2, line 59 – col. 3, line 9; col. 4, lines 2-4, 19-21)), with a sensor (Fig. 1, items 20-30; col. 4, lines 33-41: sensors are coupled to the two-wire field mountable process device via sensor terminals (see Fig. 2, items “sensor 1” … “sensor n”) arranged in different channels (see col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7)), with at least one additional interface (Fig. 2, items “sensor 1” … “sensor n”), which is suitable for signal reception (col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7: multiple sensor terminals (at least one additional interface) are provided in different channels in the two-wire field mountable process device for providing additional connections (see also col. 6, line 52 - col. 7, line 10 regarding additional interfaces (Fig. 2, items “input 1” … “input n” in channel 46, and Fig. 2, items “actuator 1” … “actuator n” in channel 48)), and with a functional unit or functional group (Fig. 2, item 40 – ‘controller’) for data and/or signal processing (col. 5, lines 18-19, 27-29: controller executes program instructions to determine outputs), which is coupled to the two-wire supply interface, the at least one additional interface and the sensor (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 53-58: two-wire field mountable device includes coupled components including controller, loop communicator, power module, sensors and input/output channels including the sensor terminals), wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out the following steps:
- receiving at least one first input signal from the sensor (Fig. 3, item 82; col. 6, lines 4-12, 19-20; col. 7, lines 16-19: controller receives measured characteristic of a first sensor through a first sensor terminal),
- receiving at least one second input signal from the at least one additional interface (Fig. 3, item 84; col. 4 lines 33-41, 49-52; col. 7, lines 19-22: controller receives measured characteristic of a second sensor through a second sensor terminal, which is a two-wire terminal (see Fig. 1)), wherein the at least one additional interface is a two-wire interface (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 18-19, 23-25: sensors terminals are two-wire interfaces since sensors are connected to sensor terminals through two wires), and
- generating an output signal on the basis of the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal (Fig. 3, item 86; col. 7, lines 24-26: a process variable is computed based on both sensor signals), and
wherein the at least one additional interface has exactly one pair of terminals, wherein the field device is configured for tapping the at least one second input signal from the one pair of terminals (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-37: sensors are connected through the sensor terminals to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements).
Regarding “the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device”, Nixon (US 20220078238 A1) teaches:
“Referring now to FIG. 1, a highly versatile (HV) field device 10 is generally illustrated in block diagram form. In particular, the highly versatile field device 10 includes field device hardware 12 which may be, for example, one or more sensors, an actuator, a valve seat and valve stem, or any other typical or desired control hardware associated with the operation of the field device. The control hardware 12 may be any combination of hardware typically associated with any type of control device, such as a sensor (e.g., temperature sensor, flow meter, level sensor, pressure sensor, etc.), a valve or other flow gas or liquid flow control structure, ignitors, fans, motors, actuators, pumps, etc.” ([0048]: a (HV) field device includes field device hardware such as sensors (analogous to integrated sensor disposed in a housing of the field device) (see also [0059] regarding two-wire communication being supported)).
Regarding “wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal, wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface”, Russell (US 20180024534 A1) teaches:
“One or more software modules 30 are accessible to the computer processor 20. The software modules 30 may be located directly within the handheld base 14, such as within memory carried by the handheld base 14 … Each software module 30 is configured to perform a different functional task. Three such software modules 30a, 30b, and 30c are illustrated in FIG. 2 for exemplary purposes only ... The software 30 and/or the computer processor 20 is preferably configured to automatically detect which functional module or modules 16 are operatively attached to the handheld base 14 and then decide which software applications 30 are to enabled for use to the user” ([0048]-[0049]: memory in the handheld base (analogous to field device) includes software modules (computing methods) that are carried out depending on the functional module (external signal generators of different type, see also [0023]) attached to the handheld base through the electrical connectors (analogous to the at least one additional interface) (see also [0058]-[059]; see also Kirkpatrick at col. 4, lines 13-21 regarding a control algorithm including logic statements relating specific inputs to outputs)).
Regarding “wherein the at least one second input signal represents a temperature measurement value, wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out a temperature compensation of the at least one first input signal by means of the at least one second input signal during the generation of the output signal”, Schumacher (US 20090030634 A1) teaches:
“In operation of transmitter 10, primary sensor 12 and Tavg sensor 13 provide analog signals to A/D 15A. Microprocessor 16 clocks the A/Ds, which digitize the analog signals, converting them to digital signals. Microprocessor 16 compensates the digital sensor signal as a function of the digital compensation signal, generating a compensated sensor output for I/F 17” ([0035]: a transmitter (field device, see [0025]) includes a primary sensor, a temperature-averaging sensor and a microprocessor, which during operation of the transmitter receives the signals from the sensors and generates a compensated sensor output (see also [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0032])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic font):
“wherein the at least one second input signal from an external signal generator represents a temperature measurement value”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discloses either field devices with integrated sensors or external sensors connected to a field device, but the prior art of record does not disclose, teach or suggest using temperature measurements from an external signal generator to compensate a signal from an integrated sensor of a field device).
Regarding claim 16.
Kirkpatrick (US 6574515 B1) discloses:
A method (Fig. 3) for providing an output signal (col. 7, lines 11-13: a method for providing a process variable using a two-wire field mounted process device is presented) comprising the steps:
- generating at least one first input signal by a sensor (Fig. 1, items 20-30; col. 4, lines 33-41: sensors are coupled to the two-wire field mountable process device via sensor terminals (see Fig. 2, items “sensor 1” … “sensor n”) arranged in different channels (see col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7)) of a field device (Figs. 1 and 2, item 16 – “two-wire field mountable process device”; Fig. 3, item 82; col. 6, lines 4-12, 19-20; col. 7, lines 16-19: controller of two-wire field mountable process device receives measured characteristic of a first sensor through a first sensor terminal),
- receiving, via at least one additional interface of the field device, at least one second input signal by the field device from a signal generator (Fig. 1, items 20-30) external to the field device (Fig. 3, item 84; col. 4 lines 33-41, 49-52; col. 7, lines 19-22: controller receives measured characteristic of a second sensor (signal generator) through a second sensor terminal (at least one additional interface); sensors are connected through sensor terminals to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements (see Fig. 1; col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7)), wherein the at least one additional interface of the field device is a two-wire interface (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 18-19, 23-25: sensors terminals are two-wire interfaces since sensors are connected to sensor terminals through two wires),
- generating the output signal by the field device on the basis of the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal (Fig. 3, item 86; col. 7, lines 24-26: a process variable is computed based on both sensor signals), and
- causing a transmission of the output signal via a two-wire system (Fig. 1, item 14 – “two-wire process loop”) by means of a two-wire supply interface (Fig. 2, items 36 and 38 – “loop communicator” and “power module”) of the field device (Fig. 3, item 88; col. 7, lines 32-34: process variable is output through loop communicator to two-wire process control loop (see col. 4, lines 56-58; see also col. 7, lines 51-55)),
wherein the at least one additional interface has exactly one pair of terminals, wherein the field device taps the at least one second input signal from the one pair of terminals (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-37: sensors are connected through pair of wires to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements; each pair of wires in Fig. 1 is interpreted to be connected to each sensor terminal in Fig. 2).
Regarding “the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device”, Nixon (US 20220078238 A1) teaches:
“Referring now to FIG. 1, a highly versatile (HV) field device 10 is generally illustrated in block diagram form. In particular, the highly versatile field device 10 includes field device hardware 12 which may be, for example, one or more sensors, an actuator, a valve seat and valve stem, or any other typical or desired control hardware associated with the operation of the field device. The control hardware 12 may be any combination of hardware typically associated with any type of control device, such as a sensor (e.g., temperature sensor, flow meter, level sensor, pressure sensor, etc.), a valve or other flow gas or liquid flow control structure, ignitors, fans, motors, actuators, pumps, etc.” ([0048]: a (HV) field device includes field device hardware such as sensors (analogous to integrated sensor disposed in a housing of the field device) (see also [0059] regarding two-wire communication being supported)).
Regarding “wherein different computing methods stored in the field device are used for generating the output signal, depending on a type of the signal generator connected to the at least one additional interface”, Russell (US 20180024534 A1) teaches:
“One or more software modules 30 are accessible to the computer processor 20. The software modules 30 may be located directly within the handheld base 14, such as within memory carried by the handheld base 14 … Each software module 30 is configured to perform a different functional task. Three such software modules 30a, 30b, and 30c are illustrated in FIG. 2 for exemplary purposes only ... The software 30 and/or the computer processor 20 is preferably configured to automatically detect which functional module or modules 16 are operatively attached to the handheld base 14 and then decide which software applications 30 are to enabled for use to the user” ([0048]-[0049]: memory in the handheld base (analogous to field device) includes software modules (computing methods) that are carried out depending on the functional module (external signal generators of different type, see also [0023]) attached to the handheld base through the electrical connectors (analogous to the at least one additional interface) (see also [0058]-[059]; see also Kirkpatrick at col. 4, lines 13-21 regarding a control algorithm including logic statements relating specific inputs to outputs)).
Regarding “wherein the at least one second input signal represents a temperature measurement value, wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out a temperature compensation of the at least one first input signal by means of the at least one second input signal during the generation of the output signal”, Schumacher (US 20090030634 A1) teaches:
“In operation of transmitter 10, primary sensor 12 and Tavg sensor 13 provide analog signals to A/D 15A. Microprocessor 16 clocks the A/Ds, which digitize the analog signals, converting them to digital signals. Microprocessor 16 compensates the digital sensor signal as a function of the digital compensation signal, generating a compensated sensor output for I/F 17” ([0035]: a transmitter (field device, see [0025]) includes a primary sensor, a temperature-averaging sensor and a microprocessor, which during operation of the transmitter receives the signals from the sensors and generates a compensated sensor output (see also [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0032])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic font):
“wherein the at least one second input signal from the signal generator represents a temperature measurement value”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discloses either field devices with integrated sensors or external sensors connected to a field device, but the prior art of record does not disclose, teach or suggest using temperature measurements from a signal generator external to the field device, to compensate a signal of an integrated sensor of a field device).
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 9, 13-14 and 17.
They are also allowed due to incorporation of the allowable subject matter recited in their corresponding independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claim 11 is distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
