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. 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16 and 26 are allowable. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art to the instant application is United States Patient 6,270,726 to Tyberg et al. (herein Tyberg ) as cited on the 16 June 2023 IDS. Regarding independent claim 16 , Tyberg discloses a method for minimizing the dead volume in a test tube (i.e., vial) presenting a liquid for aspiration (see Figs. 5-6). Tyberg discloses a pipetting probe having a conductive tip, and an integrated circuit chip containing a capacitive sensing circuitry. Tyberg discloses when the conductive tip is lowered and contacts the sample fluid (i.e., conductive surface) an increase in capacitance is sensed, wherein this sensed increase in capacitance is used to determine the level of the sample fluid in relation to a “home” position of the pipetting arm (see col. 3, lines 29-41). However, Tyberg fails to teach nor fairly suggest “storing the position of the pipetting arm (20) when conductively detecting the conductive surface (30) as a first position (P1z); moving the pipetting arm (20) towards the conductive surface (30) and along the z-axis of the pipetting arm (20) until the pipetting arm applies a predetermined force and therefore comes to a stop; storing the position when the pipetting arm (20) comes to a stop as second position (P2z); calculating the hysteresis (Hz) by determining the height difference between the first position (P1z) and the second position (P2z)” as recited in the instant claim. Claim 26 depends from claim 16. Claim Objections Claim s 12 -14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12-14 recite “a pipetting arm (20)”, however this should recite “[[a]] the at least one pipetting arm (20)” for consistency with claim 10, from which claims 12 and 13 depend; Claim 13 also recites “a stop in a first stop position (S1z)”, however this should recite “[[a]] the stop in [[a]] the first stop position (S1z)” for consistency with claim 1, from which claim 13 depends; and Claim 14 recites “a liquid handling system (1)” and “a pipetting tip (21)”, however this should recite “[[a]] the liquid handling system (1)” and “[[a]] the pipetting tip (21)” for consistency with claim 10, from which claim 14 depends. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 7-8, 17, 20, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 7 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses the pipetting probe having a conductive tip, and an integrated circuit chip containing a capacitive sensing circuitry. Tyberg discloses when the conductive tip is lowered and contacts the sample fluid (i.e., conductive surface) an increase in capacitance is sensed, wherein this sensed increase in capacitance is used to determine the level of the sample fluid in relation to a “home” position of the pipetting arm (see col. 3, lines 29-41). However, Tyberg fails to teach nor fairly suggest “storing the position of the pipetting arm (20) when conductively detecting the conductive surface (30) as a first position (P1z); moving the pipetting arm (20) towards the conductive surface (30) and along the z-axis of the pipetting arm (20) until the pipetting arm applies a predetermined force and therefore comes to a stop; storing the position when the pipetting arm (20) comes to a stop as second position (P2z); calculating the hysteresis (Hz) by determining the height difference between the first position (P1z) and the second position (P2z)” as recited in the instant claim. Claims 8, 17, and 20 depend from claim 7. Claim 9 also depends from claim 20, however, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 25 , Tyberg fails to teach nor fairly suggest “wherein the conductive surface (30) is a non-anodized aluminum surface as recited in the instant claim. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim 10 recites the limitation “means for liquid level detection” in line 7. The disclos ure defines the means for liquid level detection as either a pressure system comprising a sensor and transducer (see pg. 7, lines 10-22) or a system comprising a pipetting tip and a conductive surface (see pg. 11, lines 14-28). Therefore, the disclosure provides sufficient structure for performing liquid level detection. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “operational unit (40) configured to perform the method according to claim 1” in lines 8-9 of claim 10 . The disclosure defines the operation unit as a computer or processor configured to perform an algorithm (see pg. 11, lines 14-28; Figs. 3-6 and 11-12). Therefore, the disclosure provides sufficient structure for performing the function of the operation unit (40). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim s 9 and 11 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. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the predetermined force " in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No predetermined force has been introduced in the claims prior to this limitation in regards to the first stop position (S1z) . Claim 11 depends from both claims 1 and 6 making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Suggest amending the claim by adding the specific limitations for claim 6 that Applicant wants integrated in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 3-6, 10-15, 19, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Note: Independent Claim 16 and dependent claim 26 were previously determined to be patent eligible. Step 1: The claimed invention is directed toward a method (i.e., process) and therefore falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (see MPEP 2106.03 I. The four categories). Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites calculating the actual available liquid volume (Va) or the actual safety corrected available liquid volume ( VaSC ) which under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed in the mind , falling under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas, and thus the claim recites a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Mental Processes). Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after the calculating step, nothing else is done. The previous steps are merely to collect data points to be used in the abstract idea and thus amounts to mere data gathering which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity). Dependent claim 2 does integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the abstract idea is used to implement the next step of the method of claim 2. Dependent claim 18 depends from claim 2. Dependent claims 3-2 4 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not provide additional method steps utilizing the judicial exception with a particular machine. Dependent claims 10- 15 and 23 refer to a computer implemented method; however, this is not enough to quality as a particular application (see MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine). Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 3-6, 10-15, 19, 21, and 23-24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of these claims are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by primary reference United States Patient 6,270,726 to Tyberg et al. (herein Tyberg ) as cited on the 16 June 2023 IDS. However, dependent claim 7 recites additional steps that amount to significantly more as they are not taught by the prior art. Claims 8-9, 17, and 20 depend from claim 7. Similarly dependent claim 25 teaches the conductive surface being a non-anodized aluminum surface, which is not WURC in the art. 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 1-6, 10-15, 19, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patient 6,270,726 to Tyberg et al. (herein Tyberg ) as cited on the 16 June 2023 IDS. Regarding claim 1 , Tyberg discloses a method for minimizing the dead volume in a test tube presenting a liquid for aspiration (see Fig. 5), the method comprising: determining whether the liquid volume indicated to be available in the test tube is sufficient for a further aspiration step (see S44, Fig. 5); if not, moving downward in direction towards the bottom of the test tube (see S48, Fig. 5) by means of a pipetting probe 34 (i.e., pipetting arm) presenting a pipetting tip 36 (see Figs. 3A-C) and along the z-axis of the pipetting arm 34 (see col. 5, lines 13-16; Fig. 3C) until the pipetting arm 34 comes to a stop in a first position (see S56,Fig. 5); storing the first stop position (see col. 7, lines 40-55) of the pipetting arm 34 or correcting the first stop position (S60, Fig. 5) by a predetermined safety measure (S58A, Fig. 5) and storing this first safety corrected stop position of the pipetting arm 34; and further calculating the actual liquid volume (see S62-S64, Fig. 5) based on the liquid level known from determining whether the liquid volume indicated to be available in the test tube is sufficient for a further aspiration step and the first stop position (S50-S56, Fig. 5) or calculating the actual safety corrected available liquid volume based on the liquid level determining whether the liquid volume indicated to be available in the test tube is sufficient for a further aspiration step and the first safety corrected stop position (see S68, Fig. 5); and/or detecting the liquid level of the liquid in the test tube (S50/S54, Fig. 5) and calculating the actual available liquid volume (S62-S64, Fig. 5) based on the detected liquid level and the first stop position or calculating the actual safety corrected available liquid volume based on the detected liquid level and the first safety stop position (see S60-S68, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 2 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses the method further comprising: executing a further aspiration step when the calculated actual available liquid volume is sufficient (see S70, Fig. 5); executing a further aspiration step when the calculated actual safety corrected available liquid volume is sufficient (including step S58A) (see S70, Fig. 5); or not executing a further aspiration step when the calculated actual available liquid volume is not sufficient (see S68/stop, Fig. 5); or not executing a further aspiration step when the calculated actual safety corrected available liquid volume is not sufficient (including step S58A) (see S68/stop, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 3 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses wherein the step of determining whether the liquid volume available in the vial is sufficient for a further aspiration step (see S44, Fig. 5) comprises: detecting the liquid level of a liquid provided in the test tube for a first time (see S50, Fig. 5); calculating the indicated volume in the test tube (see S54, Fig. 5). Regarding claim 4 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses wherein the step of detecting the liquid level of a liquid provided in the test tube is executed by conductive liquid detection (see col. 5, lines 21-25). Regarding claim 5 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 3, and discloses wherein the step of detecting the liquid level of a liquid provided in the test tube is executed by conductive liquid detection (see col. 5, lines 21-25). Regarding claim 6 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses wherein a force at which the pipetting arm 34 comes to a stop in the first stop position is predetermined as it is controlled with spring mechanism 38 and sensor 40 (see col. 6, lines 1-10; Figs. 3A-C). Regarding claim 10 , Tyberg discloses the method claim 1, and discloses a liquid handing system for performing said method comprising: at least one pipetting arm 34 connectable to a pipetting tip 36 and operably connected to spring mechanism 38 and sensor 40 (i.e., pressure source) for aspirating and dispensing liquids (see col. 6, lines 1-10; Figs. 3A-C); a workbench for supporting test tubes 20 for presenting a liquid (see Fig. 2); the pipetting probe having a conductive tip, and an integrated circuit chip containing a capacitive sensing circuitry, wherein when the conductive tip is lowered and contacts the sample fluid (i.e., conductive surface) an increase in capacitance is sensed and wherein this sensed increase in capacitance is used to determine the level of the sample fluid in relation to a “home” position of the pipetting arm (i.e., a means for liquid detection) (see col. 3, lines 29-41); and a computer and an onboard microprocessor (see col. 4, lines 4-19) (i.e., operational unit). Regarding claim 11 , Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system of claim 10 (and thus the method of claim 1), and discloses the pipetting probe having a conductive tip, and an integrated circuit chip containing a capacitive sensing circuitry. Tyberg discloses when the conductive tip is lowered and contacts the sample fluid (i.e., conductive surface) an increase in capacitance is sensed, wherein this sensed increase in capacitance is used to determine the level of the sample fluid in relation to a “home” position of the pipetting arm (see col. 3, lines 29-41). Tyberg discloses wherein a force at which the pipetting arm 34 comes to a stop in the first stop position is predetermined as it is controlled with spring mechanism 38 and sensor 40 (see col. 6, lines 1-10; Figs. 3A-C). Regarding claim 12 , Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system claim 10 (and thus the method of claim 1), and discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling pipetting arm 34 of the liquid handing system (see col. 7, lines 1-12). Regarding claim 13 , Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system of claim 10, and discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling pipetting arm 34 of the liquid handing system (see col. 7, lines 1-12), the method comprising: moving the pipetting arm 34 presenting a pipetting tip 36 towards the bottom of a test tube 20 presenting on the workbench of the liquid handling system 10 until the pipetting arm 34 comes to the stop in the first stop position (see Figs. 1-4 and S56 of Fig. 5). Regarding claim 14 , Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system of claim 10, and discloses the pipetting probe having a conductive tip, and an integrated circuit chip containing a capacitive sensing circuitry. Tyberg discloses when the conductive tip is lowered and contacts the sample fluid (i.e., conductive surface) an increase in capacitance is sensed, wherein this sensed increase in capacitance is used to determine the level of the sample fluid in relation to a “home” position of the pipetting arm (see col. 3, lines 29-41). Tyberg further discloses moving the pipetting arm downward in a direction towards the liquid surface (i.e., conductive surface) by means of the pipetting arm 34 presenting a pipetting tip 36 (see Figs. 3A-C) and along the z-axis of the pipetting arm 34 (see col. 5, lines 13-16; Fig. 3C). Tyberg discloses wherein a force at which the pipetting arm 34 comes to a stop is predetermined as it is controlled with spring mechanism 38 and sensor 40 (see col. 6, lines 1-10; Figs. 3A-C). Regarding claim 15 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 12, and discloses a computer-readable medium comprising non-transitory data representing a computer program comprising instructions for causing a processor system to perform said method (see col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 12). Regarding claim 19 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 3, and discloses wherein the indicated liquid volume in the test tube (see S44 of Fig. 5) is based on a predetermined inner bottom position of the vial (see Fig. 5 and col. 2, lines 31-41). Regarding claim 21 , Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system of claim 11, and discloses wherein the conductive surface (i.e., the liquid in the test tube) is not formed integrally with the liquid handling system (see col. 3, lines 29-40). Regarding claim 23, Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system of claim 10, and discloses wherein the operation unit is a computer or processor see col. 4, lines 4-19). Regarding claim 24 , Tyberg discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 13, and discloses wherein a force at which the pipetting arm 34 comes to a stop in the first stop position is predetermined as it is controlled with spring mechanism 38 and sensor 40 (see col. 6, lines 1-10; Figs. 3A-C). 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. 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 . Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patient 6,270,726 to Tyberg et al. (herein Tyberg ) as cited on the 16 June 2023 ID S in view of United States Patent Application US 2015/0268230 to Endo as cited on the 16 June 2023 IDS. Regarding claim 18 , Tyberg discloses the method of claim 2, however fails to disclose wherein the steps of no executing a further aspiration step are combined with generating an error message as recited in the instant claim. Endo discloses an analyzer comprising: a container holder configured to hold a container containing a liquid; an aspirating tube configured to aspirate the liquid from the container held by the container holder; a drive part configured to transfer the aspirating tube; a detector configured to output a signal based on a physical characteristic between the aspirating tube and a liquid surface of the liquid container; and a controller configured to detect the liquid level position of the liquid in the container (see abstract). Endo discloses generating an error message to a user if signals indicate there is an issue with the analyzer (see [0082]). Endo and Tyberg are analogous in the field of analyzers for sensing liquid volumes in a vessel for aspiration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tyberg to generate an error message if the liquid volume is not sufficient for the benefit of notifying a user that there is an issue (see [0082] of Endo). Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patient 6,270,726 to Tyberg et al. (herein Tyberg ) as cited on the 16 June 2023 ID S in view of International Publication WO 95/08774 to Clark et al. (herein Clark). Regarding claim 22 , Tyberg discloses the liquid handling system of claim 21, however fails to discloses “wherein the conductive surface is at least one of the following: positioned on the workbench (5); a metal block; a non-anodized aluminum surface” as recited in the instant claim. Clark discloses an analytical system for handling liquid samples in a vessel (see abstract), wherein a sleeve of aluminum (i.e., metal block) can be used a conductive material for detecting a probe has contacted a liquid surface (see pg. 116, 1 st paragraph; 651 of Fig. 43 and 44). Clark and Tyberg are analogous in the field of analyzers for sensing liquid volumes in a vessel for aspiration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the liquid handling system of Tyberg wherein the conductive surface is a metal block for the benefit of avoiding the liquid itself being insufficient (see pg. 115, 1 st paragraph). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHRYN E LIMBAUGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0787 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 . 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 Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1254 . 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. /KATHRYN ELIZABETH LIMBAUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797