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 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the at least one sensor that includes one or more of an ultrasonic detector, a pressure sensor, and a magnetic position sensor ” is grammatically incorrect. The word “that” on line 1 should be deleted”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 40 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 40 and 41 are duplicates of claims 26 and 27. Appropriate correction is required. 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 4 -6 and 29 -31 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 4 and 29 are indefinite because they require a second fluid control valve without requiring a first fluid control valve. It is unclear whether more than one valve is required. Claims 5-6 and 30-31 are indefinite because they require a third control valve without requiring a first or second fluid control valve. It is unclear whether more than one valve is required. For examination purposes, Claims 4-6 and 29-31 have all been interpreted to only require one or more valves, as only a single valve is explicitly required by each claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1, 3-11, 14, 17-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraus et al. (US 5,90 2,281) . With respect to Claim 1, Kraus teaches a soft cassette 60 (Figure 14, note that at least device comprises flexible tubing and therefore qualifies as “soft”; Column 6, Lines 25-27); a housing 60 having a first port (at the top of Figure 14) and a second port the opposing end (at the bottom of Figure 14, leading into pump 65)); a first flow path (one of 62 and 66 /67 ; Figure 14) defined by the housing and configured to permit fluid flow therein and to selectively fluidly connect the first port and the second port; a second flow path (the other of flow paths 62 and 66 /67 ; Figure 14) defined by the housing and configured to permit fluid to flow therein and to selectively fluidly connect the first port and the second port; and at least one valve 70 controlling fluid flow through at least one of the first and second flow paths (62, 66 /67 ; Figure 14) With respect to Claim 3, Kraus teaches that the flow control valve 70 is positioned in flow path 66 /67 substantially adjacent the first port (Figure 14). The examiner notes that claims 1 and 3 do not structurally differentiate between the first and second flow paths. Accordingly, either of Kraus’ flow paths (62, 66/67) can be interpreted as the first flow path. With respect to Claim 4, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is disposed substantially adjacent an inlet to the first flow path 66 /67 . The examiner notes that claims 1 and 4 do not structurally differentiate between the first and second flow paths. Accordingly, either of Kraus’ flow paths (62, 66 /67 ) can be interpreted as the first flow path. Furthermore, despite referring to the valve as a “second fluid control valve,” only a single valve is required by the claim. With respect to Claim 5, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is positioned substantially adjacent an inlet to the second flow path 66 /67 . The examiner notes that claims 1 and 5 do not structurally differentiate between the first and second flow paths. Accordingly, either of Kraus’ flow paths (62, 66 /67 ) can be interpreted as the first flow path. Furthermore, despite referring to the valve as a “third fluid control valve,” only a single valve is required by the claim. With respect to Claim 6, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is a draw valve that is configured to be squeezed by the user to selectively control operation of the valve (Column 6, Lines 1-31; Figures 14-16). The examiner notes that Applicant has not claimed any structural specifics of the draw valve. Furthermore, Kraus’ valve is configured to be pinched /squeezed to operate ( Column 6, Lines 1-31; Figures 14-16 ), and therefore functions in the same way as the draw valve disclosed by applicant (see paragraph [0140] of the instant application’s PGPub). With respe ct to Claim 7, Kraus’ valve 70 is disposed in line 66 /67 and may be interpreted as any one of a fluid control valve disposed adjacent to the first port , a fluid control valve disposed adjacent to a first inlet to the first flow path , or a fluid control valve disposed adjacent to a second inlet to the second flow path . (Figure 14). The examiner notes that claims 1 and 7 do not structurally differentiate between the first and second flow paths. Accordingly, either of Kraus’ flow paths (62, 66 /67 ) can be interpreted as the first flow path. Additionally, while the claim recites first, second, and third fluid control valves, only one of these valves is required by the claim. With respect to Claim 8, Kraus’s valve 70 is configured to be squeezed to switch between first and second operating modes (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Accordingly, the valve 70 is configured to have an operating mode that is fully open and an operating mode that is fully closed. With respect to Claim 9, Kraus’s valve is configured to be squeezed to switch between first and second operating modes (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Accordingly, the valve 70 is configured to have an operating mode tha t is at least partially open (depending on the degree of squeeze force applied) and an operating mode that is fully closed. With respect to Claim 10, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is disposed in the tubing 66/67 and configured to be squeezed to switch between first and second operating modes (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Accordingly, the valve may be interpreted as any of a pinch valve, a tubing valve, or other type of actuatable valve. With respect to Claim 11, Kraus discloses that at least a portion of the housing 60 of the device is flexible. Specifically, the tubing 66/67 and/or valve 70 are capable of being squeezed to actuate the valve (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Therefore, it is implicit that the tube is flexible enough to allow squeezing of the valve disposed within the tubing. With respect to Claim 14, Kraus teaches that the second flow path 66/ 6 7 includes an inlet (the top of section 66) and an outlet (the bottom of section 67). The second flow path 66/67 is a loop where the inlet is fluidly connected to the first flow path 62 at the top portion thereof and the outlet is fluidly connected to the first flow path 62 at the bottom portion thereof. See Figure 14. With respect to Claim 17, Kraus teaches that the first flow path 62 is a direct flow lumen extending between the first port (at the top of Figure 14) and the second port (at the bottom of Figure 14, near pump 65). With respect to Claim 18, Kraus teaches that the second flow path 66 /67 is a bypass flow lumen extending between the first port (at the top of Figure 14) and the second port (at the bottom of Figure 14, near pump 65). See Figure 14 and Column 6, Lines 1-3. With respect to Claim 19, Kraus teaches that the bypass flow lumen 66 /67 is fluidly connected to a portion of the direct flow lumen 62 adjacent the first port and a portion of the direct flow lumen adjacent the second port (see Figure 14; the bypass lumen 66/67 is connected to the direct flow lumen at the upstream end and the downstream end). With respect to Claim 22, Kraus teaches that the direct flow lumen 62 extends along a first section adjacent the first port (the upstream end at the top of Figure 14) and a second section adjacent the second port (the downstream end near the pump 65 at the bottom of Figure 14). With respect to Claims 23 and 24, Kraus teaches that the first flow path 62 defines a chamber 61, specifically a drip chamber (Figure 14; Column 6, Lines 1-3) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus. With respect to Claim 12, Kraus teach e s the soft cassette of claims 1 and 11 as claimed, but is silent as to the specific material of the tubing sections. Accordingly, Kraus does not specifically teach that the housing includes a material selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), plasticized-PVC, polyethylene, ethylene with vinyl acetate (EVA), rubber, silicone, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, copolymers, and combinations thereof. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is extraordinarily well known to form medical tubing from any of these materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kraus’s cassette to use polyvinyl chloride (PVC), plasticized-PVC, polyethylene, ethylene with vinyl acetate (EVA), rubber, silicone, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, copolymers, and combinations thereof to form the tubing sections, as is commonplace in the art, in order to provide a well-known material for forming the tubing sections of the cassette. With respect to Claim 13, the claimed phrase “wherein the housing is manufactured by a process selected from the group consisting of: molding, rotomolding , casting, injection molding, or combinations thereof” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. In this case, Kraus reasonably suggests the soft cassette of claims 1 and 12 as claimed , and claim 13 does not further define the structure of the device. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus in view of Bouchard (US 6,416,293) . With respect to Claim 2, Kraus teaches the soft cassette of claim 1, wherein the cassette comprises a valve 70 in the bypass line 66/67 (Figure 14). Kraus, however, does not teach that the valve includes at least one magnet. However, magnet-actuated valves are extraordinarily well known in the art of medical fluid handling cassettes. For example, Bouchard teaches a pumping cassette including a bypass valve for directing flow (Title, Abstract), wherein the valve actuator may comprise a magnetic component for magnetically actuating the one or more valves of the cassette (Colum 35, Lines 52-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kraus’s cassette system to have a magnetically actuated valve, as suggested by Bouchard, in order to provide a well-known alternate means for opening and closing the bypass valve. Claims 15, 16, 20 , 21 , 25 -48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus in view of Olde et al. (US 2013/0172803 ) With respect to Claims 15, 16 , 20, and 21, Kraus teaches the cassette of claims 1 and 18, but does not specifically teach at least one pressure sensor on the bypass line flow path 66/67 that includes a magnet (as per C laims 15 ) or a pressure diaphragm (as per Claim 21) , such that the bypass line extends from the direct flow lumen, along a first bypass branch 66, through the sensor, through the second bypass branch 67, and back to the direct flow lumen ( as per Claim s 20 and 21 ) . Olde teaches an extracorporeal treatment device comprising a plurality of pressure sensors disposed on the flow lines for controlling operation of the system [0037]. Specifically, the pressure sensors may comprise magnetic, diaphragm, or any of a variety of types of pressure sensors known in the art [0073]. Additionally , Olde teaches that one of the pressure sensors may be disposed in a priming line to measure the presence of blood [0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kraus’s cassette to have a plurality of magnet- or diaphragm- type pressure sensor s disposed in the flow paths, including on the bypass line of the cassette, as suggested by Olde, such that bypass line extends from the direct flow lumen, along a first bypass branch 66, through the sensor, through the second bypass branch 67, and back to the direct flow lumen, in order to provide a well-known means for sensing pressure in an extracorporeal fluid line to allow for automated control of the system [0037]. With respect to Claims 25-27, 40, 41, 45, and 46, Kraus teaches a soft cassette 60 (Figure 14, note that at least device comprises flexible tubing and therefore qualifies as “soft”; Column 6, Lines 25-27); a housing 60 having a first port (at the top of Figure 14) and a second port the opposing end (at the bottom of Figure 14, adjacent pump 65)); a first flow path (62; Figure 14) defined by the housing and configured to permit fluid flow therein and to selectively fluidly connect the first port and the second port; a chamber 61 disposed in the first flow path 61 for selectively collecting fluid (Column 6, Lines 22-31); a second flow path (66/67; Figure 14) defined by the housing and configured to permit fluid to flow therein and to selectively fluidly connect the first port and the second port; and at least one valve 70 controlling fluid flow through at least one of the first and second flow paths (62, 66/67; Figure 14). Kraus does not specifically teach at least one sensor on the soft cassette, or more specifically a pressure sensor (as per Claims 2 7 and 41) on the bypass line flow path 66/67 that includes a magnet (as per Claim s 26 and 40 ) or a pressure diaphragm (as per Claim 46), such that the bypass line extends from the direct flow lumen, along a first bypass branch 66, through the sensor, through the second bypass branch 67, and back to the direct flow lumen (as per Claims 45 and 46 ). Olde teaches an extracorporeal treatment device comprising a plurality of pressure sensors disposed on the flow lines for controlling operation of th e system [0037]. Specifically, the pressure sensors may comprise magnetic, diaphragm, or any of a variety of types of pressure sensors known in the art [0073]. Additionally, Olde teaches that one of the pressure sensors may be disposed in a priming line to measure the presence of blood [0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kraus’s cassette to have a plurality of magnet- or diaphragm- type pressure sensors disposed in the flow paths, including on the bypass line of the cassette, as suggested by Olde, such that bypass line extends from the direct flow lumen, along a first bypass branch 66, through the sensor, through the second bypass branch 67, and back to the direct flow lumen, in order to provide a well-known means for sensing pressure in an extracorporeal fluid line to allow for automated control of the system [0037]. With respect to Claim 28, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is a first fluid control valve that is disposed in the bypass line substantially adjacent to the first port (Figure 14). With respect to Claim 29, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is a control valve that is disposed substantially adjacent to the inlet of the first flow path (Figure 14). The examiner notes that the claim does not require that the valve is disposed in the first flow path , but merely requires that the valve is adjacent the inlet to the first flow path . Additionally, while the claim refers to the valve as a “second flow control valve,” only a single valve is claimed. With respect to Claim 30, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is a flow control valve disposed substantially adjacent an inlet to the second flow path 66 (Figure 14) . The examiner notes that, while the claim refers to the valve as “a third control valve,” only a single flow control valve is claimed. With respect to Claim 31, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is a draw valve that is configured to be squeezed by the user to selectively control operation of the valve (Column 6, Lines 1-31; Figures 14-16). The examiner notes that Applicant has not claimed any structural specifics of the draw valve. Furthermore, Kraus’ valve is configured to be pinched/squeezed to operate (Column 6, Lines 1-31; Figures 14-16), and therefore functions in the same way as the draw valve disclosed by applicant (see paragraph [0140] of the instant application’s PGPub). With respect to Claim 32, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is disposed adjacent to an inlet 66 to the second flow path 66/67 (Figure 14). The examiner notes that while the claim recites first, second, and third fluid control valves, only one of these valves is required by the claim. With respect to Claim 33, Kraus’s valve 70 is configured to be squeezed to switch between first and second operating modes (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Accordingly, the valve 70 is configured to have an operating mode that is fully open and an operating mode that is fully closed. With respect to Claim 34, Kraus’s valve is configured to be squeezed to switch between first and second operating modes (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Accordingly, the valve 70 is configured to have an operating mode that is at least partially open (depending on the degree of squeeze force applied) and an operating mode that is fully closed. With respect to Claim 35, Kraus teaches that the valve 70 is disposed in the tubing 66/67 and configured to be squeezed to switch between first and second operating modes (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Accordingly, the valve may be interpreted as any of a pinch valve, a tubing valve, or other type of actuatable valve. With respect to Claim 36, Kraus discloses that at least a portion of the housing 60 of the device is flexible. Specifically, the tubing 66/67 and/or valve 70 are capable of being squeezed to actuate the valve (Column 6, Lines 22-31). Therefore, it is implicit that the tube is flexible enough to allow squeezing of the valve disposed within the tubing. With respect to Claim 37, Kraus teaches the soft cassette of claims 1 and 11 as claimed, but is silent as to the specific material of the tubing sections. Accordingly, Kraus does not specifically teach that the housing includes a material selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), plasticized-PVC, polyethylene, ethylene with vinyl acetate (EVA), rubber, silicone, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, copolymers, and combinations thereof. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is extraordinarily well known to form medical tubing from any of these materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kraus’s cassette to use polyvinyl chloride (PVC), plasticized-PVC, polyethylene, ethylene with vinyl acetate (EVA), rubber, silicone, thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, copolymers, and combinations thereof to form the tubing sections, as is commonplace in the art, in order to provide a well-known material for forming the tubing sections of the cassette. With respect to Claim 38, the claimed phrase “wherein the housing is manufactured by a process selected from the group consisting of: molding, rotomolding , casting, injection molding, or combinations thereof” is being treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. In this case, Kraus reasonably suggests the soft cassette of claims 1 and 12 as claimed, and claim 13 does not further define the structure of the device. With respect to Claim 39 , Kraus teaches that the second flow path 66/67 includes an inlet (the top of section 66) and an outlet (the bottom of section 67). The second flow path 66/67 is a loop where the inlet is fluidly connected to the first flow path 62 at the top portion thereof and the outlet is fluidly connected to the first flow path 62 at the bottom portion thereof. See Figure 14. With respect to Claim 42, Kraus teaches that the first flow path 62 is a direct flow lumen extending between the first port (at the top of Figure 14) and the second port (at the bottom of Figure 14, near pump 65). With respect to Claim 43, Kraus teaches that the second flow path 66/67 is a bypass flow lumen extending between the first port (at the top of Figure 14) and the second port (at the bottom of Figure 14, near pump 65). See Figure 14 and Column 6, Lines 1-3. With respect to Claim 44 , Kraus teaches that the bypass flow lumen 66/67 is fluidly connected to a portion of the direct flow lumen 62 adjacent the first port and a portion of the direct flow lumen adjacent the second port (see Figure 14; the bypass lumen 66/67 is connected to the direct flow lumen at the upstream end and the downstream end). With respect to Claim 47, Kraus teaches that the direct flow lumen 62 extends along a first section adjacent the first port (the upstream end at the top of Figure 14) and a second section adjacent the second port (the downstream end near the pump 65 at the bottom of Figure 14). With respect to Claims 48, Kraus teaches that the first flow path 62 defines a chamber 61, specifically a drip chamber (Figure 14; Column 6, Lines 1-3). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,103,630 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets are drawn to a cassette comprising a first port, a second port opposing the first port, a direct flow lumen with a drip chamber thereon, a bypass flow path, and one or more valves and sensors. The instant claims are broader than the ‘630 claims because they do not specifically require that the cassette is part of a blood component collection set including a centrifuge. . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Igarashi (US 2020/0345906) teaches a soft cassette comprising a main flow channel and a bypass channel. Gibbs (US 7,686,779) teaches an apheresis system comprising a cassette with a plurality of flow paths thereon. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Philip R Wiest whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3235 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-6 EST . 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 Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7159 . 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. /PHILIP R WIEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781