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. Specification The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, the following items are not understood: The disclosure uses the terms first distance, second distance and third distance both in the written description and in the claims, however, within the written description there is uncertainty introduced since the definition of the third distance seems to change as discussed below. Applicant’s disclosure provides: [0038] A method of determining a utility profile is set out in FIGS. 6 A- 6 C. The method starts ( 600 ) and proceed with a determination ( 602 ) of a first distance is made, the first distance being between the cooktop surface and/or heating element and the ToF sensor. A determination ( 604 ) of a second distance is made, the second distance being between utensil and the ToF sensor. A determination ( 606 ) of a third distance is made, the third distance being between a surface of liquid within the utensil and the ToF sensor. From the bold and underlined passage above, the third distance is defined as being between a surface of liquid within the utensil and the ToF sensor. However, Applicant’s disclosure also presents: [0033] FIG. 4 D depicts vertical movement of the utensil. As shown, the vertical movement of the utensil is determined by taken the difference of the second distance 430 (between the utensil and the ToF sensor) from the first distance 424 (between the heating element and the ToF sensor) to arrive at a third distance 436. Changes in the third distance over time would be an indication of rate and direction of the vertical movement of the utensil. For example, where the third distance is determined to be getting larger with time, it may be determined that the utensil is moving towards the ToF sensor. Conversely, where the third distance is determined to be getting smaller with time, it may be determined that the utensil is descending towards the heating element. As the third distance approaches zero, so too does the utensil approach the heating element. Conversely, as the third distance approaches the first distance, so too does the utensil approach the ToF sensor. Accordingly, the rate of change of the third distance over time may also be calculated so as to determine a probable time of arrival at a particular point in space between heating element and sensor. The processor may be programmed to affect the aforementioned. A determination ( 604 ) of a second distance is made, the second distance being between utensil and the ToF sensor. Additionally, the disclosure is unclear with respect to the difference of successive first distances used to determine utensil presence or absence. Applcant’s disclosure provides – A determination ( 608 ) of the difference in successive first distances is made, the determination as will be detailed in FIG. 6 B being indicative of a utensil profile comprising one of utensil present or utensil absent. [0039] FIG. 6 B depicts method step 608 in detail starting with the determination ( 609 ) of whether the difference in successive first distances is negative. As shown, if the difference in successive first distances is not negative ( 618 ), a determination of a utensil being absent ( 620 ) is made and assigned as the utensil profile and the method returns to start 600 via connector A ( 622 ). If the difference in successive first distances is negative ( 624 ), a determination of a utensil being present is made ( 626 ) and assigned as the utensil profile and the method continues to query 628 which is a first step of method step 610 . In query 628 , a determination is made whether differences in successive second distances are negative. If the determination is negative ( 630 ), a determination that the utensil is moving away from the sensor is made ( 632 ) followed by a remedial step of ceasing heat generation ( 634 ) by the heating element and the method returns to start via connector A ( 622 ). If the determination of query 628 is positive ( 636 ), a determination that the utensil is moving towards the sensor is made ( 638 ) followed by a remedial step of engaging heat generation ( 640 ) by the heating element. The initiation and cessation may be made gradual by inclusion of timing elements with rate determinations with respect to the ascent and descent along with, optionally, consideration of the heating generating speed of the heating element. The method continues via connector B ( 642 ) to FIG. 6 C which depicts method step 612 in detail. However, the disclosure provides -- [0031] FIGS. 4 B and 4 C depicts the determination of the utensil profile being “present” or “absent”. As depicted in FIG. 4 B, the ToF sensor emitter 412 and receiver 420 are used to determine a first distance 424 between the ToF sensor ( 428 ) and the heating element 426 of the cooktop surface 404 . The first distance 424 is determined by directing the emitting light 414 within the ToF sensors' first field of view 416 onto the heating element 426 so that the light may be reflected 418 within the TOF receiver's field of view 422 and detected at and by the receiver 420 . As depicted in FIG. 4 C, a second distance 430 between newly introduced utensil 406 and ToF sensor 428 is measured. The measurement is likewise made with incident light 416 from emitter 412 reflected ( 418 ) off the utensil 406 back up to receiver 420 . As shown and as would be understood, the first distance is longer than the second distance. Accordingly, determining a difference between the measurements made during the situation as depicted in Figure B and a subsequent situation as depicted in Figure C reveals a change in the distance detected (first distance minus the second distance), the change indicative of the introduced utensil. In operation, the processor is configured to monitor for such differences and upon its detection assign the utensil profile of “present”. Where no difference or a positive difference is detected, the utensil profile of “absent” is assigned. Such monitoring may be made relatively continuously, repeating at a rate set by particular application. From the above, the presence or absence of the utensil is determined by the difference of the first and second distances, not by the difference of successive first distances. Without clear meaning for the claim limitations of “successive first distances” and “third distance” a proper definitive comparison with the prior art is precluded. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed). A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-19 are 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. Claims 1 and 10 from which all other claims depend, recite the limitation of a processor configured to use a difference between successive first distances , however, there is not recitation of successive first distances being measured since the first distance being defined as the distance between the ToF sensor and the cooktop remains constant regardless of the absence or presence of a utensil. [0030] FIGS. 4A-4F depict a function of the present utensil profile determination system. Starting with FIG. 4A, sensor combination 400 is arranged above a representative cooktop surface 404. The sensors included within the combination may include the ToF sensor and the temperature sensor. Utensil 406 is positioned above the cooktop surface heating element 408 such that each of the sensors includes within its respective field of view the utensil, heating element and cooktop surface. As shown, the temperature sensor of the combination 400 has a first field of view 410 covering the entirety of the cooktop surface 404, utensil 406 and heating element 408. The ToF sensor of the combination 400 includes an emitter 412 for emitting light 414 in the ToF sensor emitter's field of view 416 which is then reflected 418 in the ToF receiver's (420) field of view 422 and detected at and by receiver 420. [0031] FIGS. 4B and 4C depicts the determination of the utensil profile being “present” or “absent”. As depicted in FIG. 4B, the ToF sensor emitter 412 and receiver 420 are used to determine a first distance 424 between the ToF sensor (428) and the heating element 426 of the cooktop surface 404. The first distance 424 is determined by directing the emitting light 414 within the ToF sensors' first field of view 416 onto the heating element 426 so that the light may be reflected 418 within the TOF receiver's field of view 422 and detected at and by the receiver 420. As depicted in FIG. 4C, a second distance 430 between newly introduced utensil 406 and ToF sensor 428 is measured. The measurement is likewise made with incident light 416 from emitter 412 reflected (418) off the utensil 406 back up to receiver 420. As shown and as would be understood, the first distance is longer than the second distance. Accordingly, determining a difference between the measurements made during the situation as depicted in Figure B and a subsequent situation as depicted in Figure C reveals a change in the distance detected (first distance minus the second distance), the change indicative of the introduced utensil. In operation, the processor is configured to monitor for such differences and upon its detection assign the utensil profile of “present”. Where no difference or a positive difference is detected, the utensil profile of “absent” is assigned. Such monitoring may be made relatively continuously, repeating at a rate set by particular application. Without clear meaning for the claim limitations of “successive first distances” and “third distance” a proper definitive comparison with the prior art is precluded. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claims are compared to the prior art as best understood with regard to the clarity issues discussed above . Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 3431881 (Unver) . Unver discloses discloses all the features of claim 1 (the references in parentheses applying to this document): A utensil profile determination system for determining a profile of a utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface, the system comprising: * a time of flight sensor (claim 8) arranged with the appliance within the time of flight sensor's field of view, the time of flight sensor configured to detect and communicate a message comprising: a first distance between the sensor and at least one of the heating element and the appliance cooktop; a second distance between the sensor and the utensil; and a third distance between the sensor and a level of the liquid (325, 326, 327) (figure 3, the sensor 307 is according to claim 8 a tof camera) ; and * a processor arranged in communication with the time of flight sensor to receive the message, the processor configured to determine the utensil profile, the utensil profile comprising, present or absent based upon a difference between successive first distances (i.e. paragraph 72, claim 9) Unver additionally discloses all the additional feature of claim 2, namely an system whereby: the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the difference between successive first distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile is present when the difference between successive first distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile is absent when the difference between successive first distances not negative (implicit, claim 9) . 1 . A utensil profile determination system for determining a profile of a utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface, the system comprising: a time of flight sensor arranged with the appliance within the time of flight sensor's field of view, the time of flight sensor configured to detect and communicate a message comprising: a first distance between the sensor and at least one of the heating element and the appliance cooktop; a second distance between the sensor and the utensil; and a third distance between the sensor and a level of the liquid; and a processor arranged in communication with the time of flight sensor to receive the message, the processor configured to determine the utensil profile, the utensil profile comprising at least one of: present or absent based upon a difference between successive first distances: vertical movement based upon a difference between successive second distances; and Dry Pot based upon a subtraction of the third distance from the first distance. 2 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the difference between successive first distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile is present when the difference between successive first distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile is absent when the difference between successive first distances not negative. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim (s) 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unver (EP 3431881A1) . Unver discloses in reference to claim: 3 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the processor 109 is further configured to determine whether or not the difference between successive second distances 326 is negative; and wherein the utensil profile vertical movement is in a direction towards the sensor when the difference between successive second distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile vertical movement is in a direction away from the sensor when the difference between successive second distances is not negative. Note that Unver discloses measuring the first, second and third distances and comparing measurements to a threshold, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use such measurements to indicate various “profiles” as needed, such as dry pot, near dry pot, utensil present or absent since the use of the difference in these measurements is taught as a means of determining a profile. 4 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the processor 109 is further configured to determine whether or not the difference of the first distance 325 from the third distance is greater than a first threshold 110 ; and wherein the utensil profile is Dry Pot when the difference of the first distance from the third distance 327 is not greater than the first threshold. Unver teaches the use of a threshold for measurements, and as such the use of thresholds for similar functionality is considered obvious under KSR rationale B. 5 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 4, wherein: the processor 109 is further configured to determine, when the difference of the first distance 325 from the third distance 327 is greater than a first threshold 110 , whether a rate of difference of the first distance from the third difference is greater than a second threshold 110 ; and wherein the utensil profile is Eminently Dry Pot when the rate of difference of the first distance 325 from the third distance 327 is greater than the second threshold. Unver teaches the use of a threshold for measurements, and as such the use of thresholds for similar functionality is considered obvious under KSR rationale B. 6 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, further comprising: a communication module in communication with the processor, the communication module configured to enable at least one of wired and wireless communication between the processor and at least one of the appliance and an external communication device; and a digital light processor positioned above the cooktop and configured to display an image on at least one of the appliance, the utensil and an interior of the utensil. Unver discloses the monitoring device may comprise a communication interface configured to couple to the cooker and receive information about active cooking hobs of the cooker. 7 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 6, wherein: the processor is further configured to initiate remedial measures, the remedial measures comprising at least one of displaying an image, generating an alarm and affecting of heat generation at the heating element; wherein the image comprises at least one of alpha-numeric character, image and color; wherein the alarm comprises at least one of an audio alarm, a visual alarm and an electronically communicable alarm; and wherein the affecting of heat generation at the heating element comprises instruction to the appliance cooktop, via the communication module, to initiate, reduce or cease heat generation at the heating element. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112 . The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 8 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 7, further comprising: a contactless temperature sensor in communication with the processor and arranged with the appliance within the temperature sensor's field of view, the temperature sensor configured to generate a second output comprising a temperature of the liquid; and wherein at least one of the image and the alarm further comprise a temperature of at least one of the liquid, the utensil, the heating element and the cooktop surface. Note that the use of temperature sensing means in the art of cooking appliances is well established and the inclusion of such a temperature sensor would have been obvious to one of skill is such art under KSR rationale A. 9 . The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, further comprising: mounting elements configured to mount the utensil profile determination system within a microwave oven or above the appliance within at least one of a vent hood and a swing arm; and wherein the mounting elements comprise at least one of a magnetic element and an adhesive element. Unver discloses Fig. 2 shows a block diagram of a monitoring device 206. The monitoring device 206 is shown without any cooker. This is to emphasize that the monitoring device 206 may also be provided as separate device that need not necessarily be an integral part of a cooker. Instead the monitoring device 206 may e.g. be integrated into a cooker or exhaust hood that may be provided e.g. in a kitchen. Note that the use of magnetic or adhesive elements to “integrate” a component with another is a well known practice and would have been obvious under KSR rationale A. 10 . A method for determining a utensil profile, the utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface, the method comprising the steps of: determining with a time of flight sensor a first distance between the cooktop surface and the sensor, a second distance between the utensil and the sensor, and a third distance between a liquid level and the sensor; and determining with a processor in communication with the flight sensor a difference in successive first distances, a difference in successive second distances, a difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance, and the utensil profile based upon the difference in successive first distances, the difference in successive second distances and the difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance. 11 . The method according to claim 10, further comprising the steps of initiating remedial measures, the remedial measures comprising at least one of displaying an image, generating an alarm and affecting of heat generation at the heating element . Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112 . The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 12 . The method according to claim 11, wherein the utensil profile comprises at least one of: present or absent based the difference in successive first distances: vertical movement based upon the difference in successive second distances; and Dry Pot based upon the difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance. See claim 4 above, mutatis mutandis 13 . The method according to claim 12, wherein the step of determining the presence or absence further comprises the steps of determining with the processor whether or not the difference in successive first distances is negative, wherein the utensil profile is present when the difference in successive first distances is negative and wherein the utensil profile is absent when the difference in successive first distances is not negative. See claim 1 above, NOTE the clarity issue discussed above precludes application of art as there is not a disclosure of “ successive first distances ” 14 . The method according to claim 12, wherein the step of determining the vertical movement further comprises the steps of determining with the processor whether or not the difference in successive second distances is negative, wherein the utensil profile vertical movement is in a direction towards the sensor when the difference in successive second distances is negative and wherein the utensil profile vertical movement is in a direction away from the sensor when the difference in successive second distances is not negative. See claim 3, mutatis mutandis 15 . The method according to claim 14, further comprising the steps: initiating heat generation at the heating element as the utensil is moving away from the sensor; and ceasing heat generation at the heating element as the utensil is moving towards the sensor. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112 . The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 16 . The method according to claim 12, wherein the step of determining the Dry Pot further comprises the steps of determining whether or not the difference of the first distance from the third distance is greater than a first threshold, wherein the utensil profile is Dry Pot when the difference of the first distance from the third distance is not greater than the first threshold. See claim 4, mutatis mutandis 17 . The method according to claim 16, further comprising the steps of determining, when the difference of the first distance from the third distance is greater than a first threshold, whether a rate of difference of the first distance from the third difference is greater than a second threshold, wherein the utensil profile is Eminently Dry Pot when the rate of difference of the first distance from the third distance is greater than the second threshold . See claim 5, mutatis mutandis 18 . The method according to claim 17, further comprising the steps of: ceasing heat generation at the heating element; and displaying the message on at least one of the appliance, the utensil and the liquid, the message comprising at least one of alphanumeric characters, images and colors. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112 . The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 19 . The method according to claim 11, further comprising the steps of: measuring with a contactless temperature sensor at least one of a temperature of the liquid, the utensil, the heating element and the cooktop surface; and wherein at least one of the image and the alarm further comprise the temperature of at least one of the liquid, the utensil, the heating element and the cooktop surface. See claim 8, mutatis mutandis Generally, Unver is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 10, and discloses a method for determining a utensil profile, the utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface (claim 13), the method comprising the steps of: determining with a time of flight sensor a first distance between the cooktop surface and the sensor, a second distance between the utensil and the sensor, and a third distance between a liquid level and the sensor (claim 8, paragraph 67); and determining with a processor in communication with the flight sensor a difference in successive first distances, a difference in successive second distances, and the utensil profile based upon the difference in successive first distances, the difference in successive second distances and the difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance (implicit paragraph 67, 72, claim 9). The subject-matter of claim 1 0 therefore differs from this known method in that a difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance. The distinguish features have the technical effect that the distance between appliance and liquid is calculated. The technical effect can be seen as calculating a "dry pot" as defined in claim 12. Unver is already calculating on base of these three distances a n overboiling. It would therefore be obvious, to use the taken measurements to calculate a "dry pot", if needed. The subject matter of claim 10 can therefore not be seem as inventive. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4776 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712705569 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /THOR S CAMPBELL/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3761 tsc