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. Status of Claims The claim set submitted on 28 JUNE is acknowledged and considered. In the claim set, Claims 1-20 are submitted and are considered on the merits below. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CHINA on 31 DECEMBER 2020 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CHINA 202011635731.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 JUNE 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 AUGUST 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. 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: A “transport control device is configured to control at least a flow direction…” in Claim 1 and “transport control device to allow a removable reagent pack to outwardly output …”, “transport control device to allow the removable pack to outwardly output …”, “transport control device to allow an exterior to input a quantitative gas …”, and “transport control device to allow the removable reagent pack to outwardly output a quantitative gas …” in Claim 13; the “transport control device is configured to receive a forward driving force output by a host of an in-vitro diagnostic device” and the “transport control device is configured to receive a reverse driving force…” in Claim 19. A “device” does not connote any particular structure. The “transport control device” is described as a pump, [0008] and in Claim 2. A “external interface is configured to output liquid…” in Claim 8. An “interface” does not connote any particular structure. The “external interface” is described as “a first interface for receiving fluid samples, a second interface for air pump inlet/outlet, and a third interface” in [0050]. A “readable device for recording status information” in Claim 12. A “device” does not connote any particular structure. The specification does not describe what a “readable device” is. A “pipeline switching device is configured to connect a gas source to the at least one external interface…” in Claim 20. A “device” does not connote any particular structure. The specification describes the “pipeline switching device” to be a three-way valve, [0017]. 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 12 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 limitation “readable device for recording status information” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of recording status information or read factor information and use status is just performed. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to maintain a hue in fabrics. The use of the term “read/reading” is not adequate structure for performing the maintaining function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which brightening structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of recording status information. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention . 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)(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 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109 557 295 A, SHENZHEN, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 28 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1. Applicant’s invention is directed to a device. Regarding Claim 1 , the reference SHENZHEN discloses a removable reagent pack for use in an in-vitro diagnostic device, Figure 1, reagent pack 2, page 7 ‘Detailed ways’ comprising: a housing; at least one external interface located on the housing, Figure 1 and 2, reagent pack 2 has a housing 21 seen in Figures; at least one liquid storage device comprising an output pipeline, wherein the at least one liquid storage device is located in a space formed by the housing, Figure 2, reagent pack bag 22 is in housing 21, page 7-8, ‘Detailed ways’; at least one transport control device located in the space, wherein the at least one transport control device is configured to control at least a flow direction in a pipeline inside of the removable reagent pack, so that a liquid inside of the at least one liquid storage device flows out through the output pipeline, Figure 1 and 2, pages 7-8, ‘Detailed ways’, peristaltic pump tube 23 with reagent output interface 25; and at least one positioning mechanism connected to the at least one transport control device, so that the at least one transport control device is driven by an in-vitro diagnostic device, Figure 2, reagent output interface, page 7-8, ‘Detailed ways’. Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 2 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one transport control device is a pump, Figure 2, peristaltic pump /pump tube / pump rotor 12, all Figures, pages 7-8, ‘Detailed ways’, Claim 2, page 3, ‘Contents of the invention’.; Claim 3 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 2, wherein the pump is configured to be forward rotated and/or reverse rotated, pages 10-11, ‘Detailed ways’, pump rotor can be turned clockwise/counter clockwise, all Figures. ; Claim 4 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 2, wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump, Figure 2, peristaltic pump /pump tube / pump rotor 12, all Figures, pages 7-8, 10-11 ‘Detailed ways’, Claim 2. ; Claim 5 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one pipeline switching device, page 12, ‘Detailed ways’ valve 24.; Claim 6 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 5, further at least comprising three pipelines: a first pipeline being the output pipeline of the liquid storage device, a second pipeline connected to an exterior, and a third pipeline connected to the at least one external interface of the removable reagent pack; wherein the pipeline switching device is configured to allow one of the first pipeline and the second pipeline to be connected to the third pipeline, Figure 2, valve 24 is connected to reagent pack bag 22, pump tube 23 and air port 242, pages 7-8, ‘Detailed ways’. ; Claim 7 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 6, wherein the transport control device is located on at least the third pipeline, Figure 2.; Claim 8 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one external interface is configured to output liquid in the removable reagent pack, output gas and/or input gas, Figure 8-11, vent 3231, page 9, ‘Detailed ways’. ; Claim 9 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the external interface is at least partially encapsulated with a seal, page 14, ‘Detailed ways’, reagent pack …to from sealed channels.; Claim 10 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the liquid is a calibration liquid, Claim 7, calibration liquid, page 7, ‘Detailed ways’, reagent pack used for filling calibrator. The instant claim language is directed to material to be worked upon by the device. Thus, “[ i ] nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). ; Claim 11 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 5, wherein the positioning mechanism is a groove, and/or the pipeline switching device is a three-way valve, Figure 2, three way valve 24, page 8, ‘Detailed ways’. ; Claim 12 : wherein the removable reagent pack as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a readable device for recording status information, Claim 1, page 13, ‘Detailed ways’, detection unit 132, Figures, wherein the status information comprises one or more of the liquid type, usage temperature, capacity, adapted sensor type, historical usage status of the removable reagent pack, and current capacity status information, page 5, ‘Technical field’ and ‘Background technique’. Applicant’s invention is directed to a method. Regarding Claim 13 , the reference SHENZHEN discloses a method for controlling a removable reagent pack, Claim 1, page 1, ‘Summary’, comprising: a first stage, configuring a transport control device to allow a removable reagent pack to outwardly output quantitative calibration liquid, page 14-15, ‘Detailed ways’, Claim 1, pump alternatively squeezed and released and calibration liquid is pumped into channel; a second stage, configuring the transport control device to allow the removable reagent pack to outwardly output a quantitative gas, page 7 and 15, ‘Detailed ways’; a third stage, configuring the transport control device to allow an exterior to input a quantitative gas into the removable reagent pack, page 5 and 15, ‘Contents of the invention’; ‘Detailed ways’, air; and a fourth stage, configuring the transport control device to allow the removable reagent pack to outwardly output a quantitative gas, page 15 , ‘Detailed ways’. Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 14 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the first stage is a stage that a sensor is calibrated by a test card or a blood gas analyzer host, page 14-15, ‘Detailed ways’. ; Claim 15 : method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the second stage is a stage of emptying the calibration liquid after completing a calibration, page 3 and 15, ‘Contents of the invention’; ‘Detailed ways’. ; Claim 16 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the third stage is a stage that a sample to be detected is injected into a test card for blood gas detection, page 3 and 15, ‘Contents of the invention’; ‘Detailed ways’. ; Claim 19 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein in the first stage, the second stage and the fourth stage, the transport control device is configured to receive a forward driving force output by a host of an in-vitro diagnostic device, page 3-4, ‘Contents of the invention’; and in the third phase, the transport control device is configured to receive a reverse driving force output by the host of the in-vitro diagnostic device, page 3-4, ‘Contents of the invention’, pages 14-15, ‘Detailed ways’. ; and Claim 20 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein in the first stage, a pipeline switching device in the removable reagent pack is configured to connect an output pipeline of a liquid storage device to at least one external interface, Figure 2 and 7, page 14, ‘Detailed ways’, three-way valve 24.; and in the second stage to the fourth stage, the pipeline switching device is configured to connect a gas source to the at least one external interface, page 5 and 15, ‘Detailed ways’. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event t he 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109 557 295 A, SHENZHEN, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 28 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1, and further in view of SINNOWA, CN 106290493 A, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 28 JUNE 2023, Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 2. Regarding Claim 17 , the SHENZHEN reference discloses the claimed invention, including wherein the fourth stage is a stage that a sample to be detected in the test card is transferred from a blood gas detection area, page 3 and 15, ‘Contents of the invention’; ‘Detailed ways’, but is silent in regards to wherein the sample is transferred to a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area. The SINNOWA reference discloses a method for controlling an analyzer, page 1, ‘Summary’, page 3, ‘Contents of the invention’, detection method, page 9, Example 3, comprising: a first stage, configuring a transport control device to allow a device to outwardly output quantitative calibration liquid, page 5, Claim 9, page 3 and 9, Step 2, blank reagent; a second stage, configuring the transport control device to allow the analyzer to outwardly output a quantitative gas, page 4 and 9, Step 3-4; and a fourth stage, configuring the transport control device to allow the device to outwardly output a quantitative gas and the method further comprises wherein the fourth stage is a stage that a sample to be detected in the set-up is transferred from a blood gas detection area to a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area, Example 3, page 9-10, Steps 4 and 7-9, blood gas analyzer/analysis (electrochemical detection) to hemoglobin calculation area with absorbance read and recorded (optical detection device). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention to include in the method, the fourth stage to have the sample be is transferred from a blood gas detection area to a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area as taught by SINNOWA so that more than one aspect of a blood sample can be detected and determined to simplify operations and quickly and efficiently determine more than one parameter of a blood sample, reduce the number of times a patient needs to be subjected to sample withdraw al s, and reduces a patient treatment cost they need to seek, page 1, ‘Summary’. Regarding Claim 18 , the SHENZHEN reference discloses the claimed invention of claim 13, including wherein based on the same sample to be detected in a test card, a blood gas detection is performed in the third stage, page 3 and 15, ‘Contents of the invention’; ‘Detailed ways’, but is silent in regards to wherein the method includes a detection of hemoglobin and its derivatives is performed in the fourth stage. The SINNOWA reference discloses a method for controlling an analyzer, page 1, ‘Summary’, page 3, ‘Contents of the invention’, detection method, page 9, Example 3, comprising: a first stage, configuring a transport control device to allow a device to outwardly output quantitative calibration liquid, page 5, Claim 9, page 3 and 9, Step 2, blank reagent; a second stage, configuring the transport control device to allow the analyzer to outwardly output a quantitative gas, page 4 and 9, Step 3-4; and a fourth stage, configuring the transport control device to allow the device to outwardly output a quantitative gas and the method further comprises wherein the fourth stage is a stage that a sample to be detected in the set-up is transferred from a blood gas detection area to a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area, Example 3, page 9-10, Steps 4 and 7-9, blood gas analyzer/analysis (electrochemical detection) to hemoglobin calculation area with absorbance read and recorded (optical detection device). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention to include in the method, the fourth stage to have the sample be is transferred from a blood gas detection area to a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area as taught by SINNOWA so that more than one aspect of a blood sample can be detected and determined to simplify operations and quickly and efficiently determine more than one parameter of a blood sample, reduce the number of times a patient needs to be subjected to sample withdraw al s, and reduces a patient treatment cost they need to seek, page 1, ‘Summary’. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3243 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 5:30 -15:30 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 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. CTM /CHRISTINE T MUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797