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
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, the term "unit)" should be "unit".
In claim 9, the term "ior at the same time" in line 4 should be "or at the same time".
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, and fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
As to claims 1-18 and 20:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method. Claims 14-18 and 20 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claims 1 and 14 recites “allocating the functional tasks to the functional devices based on a criterion to achieve compliance with at least one predefined control target of controlling the functional devices”, which is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen or paper. Thus, claim 1 recites limitations that fall into the mental process groups of abstract ideas. Claims (2-13) and (15-18, 20) depend on claims 1 and 14 respectively. Claims (2-13) and (15-18, 20), each recite at least all of the judicial exceptions of claims 1 and 14, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mental process groups of abstract ideas. Additionally, each of claims (2-13) and (15-18, 20) recite nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mental processes, in the form of additional information about the abstract organizing human activity steps and field of use.
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding “predefined control target” recited in claims 1-18 and 20, that because the method merely recites “predefined control target,” and not any particular structure or steps for obtaining the predefined control target data, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the predefined control target data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of organizing human activities.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-18 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Claims 1-18 and 20 recite “a plurality of functional devices or individual functioning parts of at least some of the functional devices”.
The plurality of functional devices or individual functioning parts of at least some of the functional devices represents nothing more than field of use. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the field of use. Accordingly, the additional element of a plurality of functional devices or individual functioning parts of at least some of the functional devices does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 1-18 and 20 are directed to the judicial exceptions.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 1-18 and 20, these claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. Each of claims 1-18 and 20 recite nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mental processes, in the form of additional information about the abstract organizing human activity steps.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-18 and 20, and claims 1-18 and 20 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In this case, claim 14 recites “a control unit” is a single element and that element is in means-plus-function format. The control unit for performing only a single function of allocating a plurality of functional tasks to a plurality of functional devices. This means recitation “a control unit for” does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2164.08(a).
As to claims 15-20, claims 15-20 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 14.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kapps – US 20130303409 and further in view of Kazuto – Translate_JP2012237564A.
As to claims 1, 14 and 16, Kapps teaches a method and a control unit of allocating a plurality of functional tasks to a plurality of functional devices ([0033-0035]: maintenance unit for associating a maintenance plan to the devices 2; [0044]: analytical instrument is composed of a plurality of devices 2 comprising a sample injection device 25, a plurality of separation devices 24, a selection device 26 and a detection device 27; hence, devices 2 correspond to “a plurality of functional devices”; [0035]: different maintenance events and information/data is automatically linked to the devices 2; thus “a method of allocating a plurality of functional tasks to a plurality of functional devices”) each capable of carrying out one or more of the functional tasks ([0033-0035]: different information/data can be linked to the work line, which is exported to devices so that devices 2 can perform respective one or more of the functional tasks/jobs; thus “each capable of carrying out one or more of the functional tasks”), wherein the functional devices 2 are devices which are part of the analytical HPLC instrument and each of the functional tasks corresponds to a respective predefined process/job/task related to operating respective functional devices which are part of the analytical HPLC instrument ([0033-0035]), the method comprising allocating the functional tasks/jobs to the functional devices 2 based on a criterion to achieve compliance with at least one predefined control target of controlling the functional devices 2 ([0033-0035]: allocating/associating different maintenance plans to the functional devices 2; [0017]: a control system comprises a maintenance unit wherein the data storage is arranged to hold data of each of the devices and the maintenance unit is arranged to induce maintenance of the devices taking into account the data of each of the devices. The term “induce device maintenance” in this context relates to various maintenance actions such as triggering preventive device maintenance after a certain use of the according device, storing and displaying device events such as successful runs, errors, repairings and the like, defining default parameters of the devices, displaying device inventories, estimating costs of analytical runs with regard to the devices and the like. Like this, an efficient and convenient maintenance of the devices is possible; Thereby, the maintenance unit preferably is arranged to predefine a value of maintenance data (or “at least one predefined control target”) of each of the devices; thus “allocating the functional tasks/jobs to the functional devices based on a criterion to achieve compliance with at least one predefined control target of controlling the functional devices”).
Kapps does not explicitly teach the functional devices are analytical devices and each of the functional tasks corresponds to a respective predefined process related to analyzing a respective sample by a respective one of the functional devices.
Kazuto teaches a concept of: an analytical instrument control / management system that controls and manages a plurality of analytical instruments of the same type or different types (see page 2 and claim 1 of Kazuto).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapps with teachings of Kazuto to include the functional devices are analytical devices and each of the functional tasks corresponds to a respective predefined process related to analyzing a respective sample by a respective one of the functional devices (as recited in claims 1 and 14); an arrangement, comprising: a plurality of functional devices each capable of carrying out one or more functional tasks, wherein the functional devices are analytical devices and each of the functional tasks corresponds to a respective predefined process related to analyzing a respective sample by a respective one of the functional devices; and at least one control unit (as recited in claim 16), for controlling and managing various analytical instruments such as a liquid chromatograph, a gas chromatograph, a mass spectrometer, and a spectrophotometer (see page 3).
As to claim 17, Kazuto teaches the functional devices are sample separation apparatuses for separating a fluidic sample (Fig.1: liquid chromatographs LC1 and LC2 corresponds to “the functional devices are sample separation apparatuses for separating a fluidic sample”).
As to claim 20, Kapps teaches the plurality of functional devices form part of at least one of: a localized system; a fleet; a lab; a site ([0033]: analytical instruments as well as associated devices used or stored in the laboratory).
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kapps and Kazuto and further in view of Wu – US 20220413978.
As to claim 8, modified Kapps does not explicitly teach at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that maintenance for the individual functional devices or individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices falls due temporally synchronized.
Wu teaches a concept of: operational maintenance instruction corresponding to the task content in the operational maintenance task can be issued to a plurality of remote devices at the same time ([0069, 0074]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Kapps with teachings of Wu to include at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that maintenance for the individual functional devices or individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices falls due temporally synchronized, because this helps greatly reduce time consumption ([0074]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kapps and Kazuto and further in view of Schuhn – US 20210302399.
As to claim 18, modified Kapps does not explicitly teach each sample separation apparatus comprises: a fluid drive unit configured for driving a mobile phase and the fluidic sample injected in the mobile phase; and a sample separation unit configured for separating the fluidic sample in the mobile phase.
Schuhn teaches sample separation apparatus comprises: a fluid drive unit configured for driving a mobile phase and the fluidic sample injected in the mobile phase; and a sample separation unit configured for separating the fluidic sample in the mobile phase ([0009, 0013]).
Schuhn further teaches sample separation apparatus further comprises at least one of the following features: the sample separation apparatus is configured as at least one of: a chromatography sample separation apparatus; a liquid chromatography sample separation apparatus; a gas chromatography sample separation apparatus; a supercritical fluid chromatography sample separation apparatus ([0013]); the sample separation unit is a chromatographic separation column ([0028]);
comprising an injector configured to inject the fluidic sample into the mobile phase ([0028]); comprising a detector configured to detect the separated fluidic sample ([0051]);
comprising a fractionating unit configured to collect the separated fluidic sample ([0051]: a fractionating unit for outputting separated compounds of the fluidic sample; it means the fractionating unit collects the separated fluidic sample and then outputs separated compounds of the fluidic sample; thus “a fractionating unit configured to collect the separated fluidic sample”);
comprising a degassing apparatus for degassing at least part of the mobile phase ([0064]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sample separation apparatuses LC1 and LC2 of modified Kapps with teachings of Schuhn to include sample separation apparatus comprises: a fluid drive unit configured for driving a mobile phase and the fluidic sample injected in the mobile phase; and a sample separation unit configured for separating the fluidic sample in the mobile phase (as recited in claim 18); each sample separation apparatus further comprises at least one of the following features: the sample separation apparatus is configured as at least one of: a chromatography sample separation apparatus; a liquid chromatography sample separation apparatus; a gas chromatography sample separation apparatus; a supercritical fluid chromatography sample separation apparatus; the sample separation unit is a chromatographic separation column; comprising an injector configured to inject the fluidic sample into the mobile phase; comprising a detector configured to detect the separated fluidic sample; comprising a fractionating unit configured to collect the separated fluidic sample; comprising a degassing apparatus for degassing at least part of the mobile phase (as recited in claim 19), for separating different components of a sample, particularly a liquid chromatography device; and for detecting separated compounds of the sample fluid ([0013, 0064]).
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 18.
Claim 2-7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kapps and Kazuto and further in view of Carlisle – US 20240014020.
As to claim 15, modified Kapps does not explicitly teach at least one predefined control target is related to wear and tear of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices when carrying out the allocated functional tasks.
Carlisle teaches a concept of: proactively determining a state of deterioration (or “predefined control target”) of one or more mass spectrometry instruments ([0031]); Carlisle further teaches mass spectrometry instruments 102 communicate their machine-level characteristics and/or mass spectrometry results to cloud-based server 106. Mass spectrometry instrument 102 may transmit data to cloud-based server 106 in response to queries from cloud-based server 106 ([0047]: cloud-based server 106 makes decisions and/or predictions i.e. degradation status (or “predefined control target”) of hardware components within each of the mass spectrometry instrument 102 based on collected machine-level characteristics data from each of mass spectrometry instrument 102 and then cloud-based server 106 allocates tasks i.e. schedule cleaning or maintenance for each of mass spectrometry instrument 102 based on the decisions and/or predictions i.e. degradation status (or “predefined control target”) of hardware components within each of the mass spectrometry instrument 102).
Carlisle further teaches component degradation may be modelled based on measured use of the instrument, in order to provide a prediction on future life ([0067]).
Carlisle further teaches determining the adjustments for the mass analysis instrument may be based on the type of component that is contaminated or degraded along with the severity of the contamination or degradation ([0109]).
Carlisle further teaches system includes a mass analysis instrument comprising a hardware component; a processor; and memory storing instructions; the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations i.e. accessing machine-level characteristics for the hardware component; identifying a baseline for the machine-level characteristics for the hardware component; receiving present machine-level characteristics for the hardware component; based on a comparison of the present machine-level characteristics and the identified baseline, determining an anomaly has occurred (or “sets of functional tasks”) ([0016]: all the tasks are assigned to the device, hence, assign set or sets of tasks to only one device).
Carlisle further teaches at least one of the at least one predefined control target is related to an energy consumption of the functional device or individual functional part of at least the functional device ([0045]: machine-level characteristics of the mass analysis instrument 102 include characteristics of operating conditions of the components of the mass analysis instrument 102 i.e. power consumed by the turbo pump).
Carlisle further teaches based on the system operating conditions, determining that the anomaly is not expected ([0015-0016]: when the anomaly is not expected, it means that a number of sets of functional tasks executed by functional device or mass analysis instrument meets a predefined target specification).
Carlisle further teaches: to help prevent such failures and contamination, the mass analysis instruments currently go through routine maintenance procedures that are performed on a regular basis. For instance, a mass analysis instrument may be cleaned and maintained every six months or every year ([0037]); mass analysis results may be analyzed to determine if they fall within a threshold or tolerance level of the expected results. If the mass analysis results fall within the threshold or tolerance level of the expected results, the mass analysis instrument may be deemed to be calibrated (or balanced) or operating in normal condition ([0063]).
Carlisle further teaches: series of operational tests are performed by a mass analysis instrument to analyze a calibrant, which is a particular type of sample for which particular results are expected ([0059]).
Carlisle further teaches: there is a significant benefit to customizing state determinations to particular mass analysis instrument ([0079] details that particular mass analysis instrument is selected/picked for a customized determination of contamination state and/or degradation state); mass analysis instrument may perform predefined series of operational tests at the three or more different times (e.g., a first time, a second time, and a third time) ([0078]). Mass analysis instrument may automatically enter the diagnostic mode at a scheduled time on a regular interval ([0061]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify managing and controlling plurality of functional devices of modified Kapps with teachings of Carlisle to include at least one predefined control target is related to wear and tear of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices when carrying out the allocated functional tasks (as recited in claim 15); at least one of the at least one predefined control target is related to a temporal coordination when maintenance for the individual functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices falls due (as recited in claim 4); at least one of the at least one predefined control target is related to a temporal coordination when the individual functional devices or individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices reach an end of lifetime and require substitution (as recited in claim 5); dynamically adjusting at least one maintenance time at which maintenance of the functional devices or at least an individual functional part of the functional devices is due (as recited in claim 12); the functional tasks are grouped into sets of functional tasks, and wherein the method comprises allocating each set of the functional tasks to only one of the functional devices (as recited in claim 13); at least one of the at least one predefined control target is related to an energy consumption of the functional devices or individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices when carrying out the allocated functional tasks (as recited in claim 7); at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that a number of sets of functional tasks executed by the functional devices meets a predefined target specification or is maximized (as recited in claim 11); allocating the functional tasks to the functional devices so that at one or more temporally coordinated maintenance times of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices, wear and tear of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices is balanced (as recited in claim 3); at least one of the at least one predefined control target is related to a quality of results of analyzing samples or to an accuracy of a separation of analyzed samples in separated sample components, when the functional devices or individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices carry out the allocated functional tasks (as recited in claim 6); one of the following features: wherein at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that maintenance for the individual functional devices or individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices falls due within a predefined common time interval or at the same time; wherein at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that maintenance for different groups of the individual functional devices or different groups of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices falls due within different predefined time intervals for different groups or at different times for different groups (as recited in claim 9), for testing quality of a respective sample for i.e. purity or concentration and determining an anomaly of respective instrument(s) has occurred and automatically schedule cleaning or maintenance and further check inventory and order replacement components as needed ([0047, 0063]), and for testing quality of respective groups of respective sample(s) as desired for i.e. purity or concentration and determining an anomaly of respective groups of respective instrument(s) (as desired and/or based on priority) has occurred and automatically schedule cleaning or maintenance and further check inventory and order replacement components as needed.
As to claims 2-7, 9, and 11-13, claims 2-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 15.
As to claim 10, modified Kapps does not explicitly teach at least one of the following features: wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices as a basis for assessing the at least one predefined control target; wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices based on an intended use of a respective one of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices in the future; wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices based on an actual use of a respective one of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices in the past; wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices based on preknown attributes of a respective one of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices and/or based on preknown attributes of the functional tasks; wherein the method comprises allocating less functional tasks to a respective one of the functional devices or to an individual functional part of a respective one of the functional devices being closer to an expected maintenance time or being closer to an expected end of lifetime compared with at least one other functional device or compared with a corresponding other functional part of at least one other functional device; wherein at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that wear and tear of at least one selected functional device is to be smaller than wear and tear of at least one other of the functional devices.
Carlisle teaches a degradation indicator (“or at least one predefined control target”) for a detector of the mass analysis instrument indicates that the detector is nearing the end of its life ([0109]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify managing and controlling plurality of functional devices of modified Kapps with teachings of Carlisle to include at least one of the following features: wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices as a basis for assessing the at least one predefined control target; wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices based on an intended use of a respective one of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices in the future; wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices based on an actual use of a respective one of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices in the past; wherein the method comprises estimating an expected maintenance time and/or an expected end of lifetime for at least some of the functional devices or for individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices based on preknown attributes of a respective one of the functional devices or of individual functional parts of at least some of the functional devices and/or based on preknown attributes of the functional tasks; wherein the method comprises allocating less functional tasks to a respective one of the functional devices or to an individual functional part of a respective one of the functional devices being closer to an expected maintenance time or being closer to an expected end of lifetime compared with at least one other functional device or compared with a corresponding other functional part of at least one other functional device; wherein at least one of the at least one predefined control target is that wear and tear of at least one selected functional device is to be smaller than wear and tear of at least one other of the functional devices, because this helps determining adjustment to the mass analysis instrument(s) i.e. an increase in voltage to restore performance of the detector(s) of respective mass analysis instrument(s) until the detector(s) can be replaced ([0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855