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
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 8-12 in the reply filed 5 February 2026 is acknowledged and accordingly each of the objections thereto for the reasons outlined in the last office action mailed 17 November 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks that Patten is not concerned with zero verification of a vibratory meter and that Patten does not teach or suggest selecting criteria based on a property of fluid. Applicant remarks that Patten teaches zero drift which is predetermined and therefore does not teach or suggest selecting, based on the property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria value for the sensor assembly.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Patten fails to teach or suggest zero verification. In particular, ¶ 47 of Patten notes explicitly that operating conditions associated with flowmeter 5 (and therefore fluid that flows therein as disclosed in ¶ 8) are utilized and further that performance associated with various parameters are evaluated and these parameters include zero drift vs temperature, zero stability, and zero stability uncertainty. In particular, zero stability uncertainty is considered to be a zero-verification criteria that is selected based on the property of the fluid flowing in the flowmeter because the measured parameters such as flow rate temperature, pressure, and density are necessarily dependent upon the fluid properties of the fluid flowing therein.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 of the present application is directed to selecting a zero-verification criteria value which changes the grounds to make zero verification more stringent based on fluid type or change a scaling of a zero verification procedure. Applicant argues that this is different from comparing parameter value to B and zeroing if A > B. Applicant remarks that it would be analogous to measuring a fluid property and changing “zeroing if A > B” to “zeroing if A ≤ B”.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that because Patten is considered to disclose selection of a zero-verification criteria value (as noted above regarding the disclosure of Patten ¶ 47 regarding selection of zero-verification criteria such as zero stability and zero stability uncertainty), the examiner contends that the claim limitations of claim 1 have been met because the claim requires determining a property of a fluid and selecting, based on the property, a zero-verification criteria value for the sensor assembly. While the examiner has considered Applicant’s remarks regarding zero verification being more stringent due to a particular fluid type or changing a scaling due to fluid density, the specific remarks relating to comparison of values for the purpose of zeroing are not recited in the claim and accordingly the examiner still contends that the claim limitations of claim 1 (as well as independent claims 7 and 13 which each recite similar limitations) are met by the noted section of Patten and accordingly the rejection thereto is upheld as proper.
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, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patten US PG-PUB 2019/0234784 A1 (hereafter Patten), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 13 November 2023.
As to claim 1: Patten discloses a meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43) for selecting a zero-verification criteria for performing a zero verification (see ¶ 47) of a vibratory meter (5; fig. 1 and see ¶ 35), the meter electronics (20) comprising:
an interface (201; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43) communicatively coupled to a sensor assembly (10; see ¶ 35 regarding the sensor assembly and further see ¶ 43 regarding the communication between the interface 201 and the sensor assembly components) containing a fluid (see ¶ 22); and
a processing system (203; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) communicatively coupled to the interface (201) (see fig. 2 and ¶ 43), the processing system (203) being configured to:
determine a property of a fluid (see ¶ 43 and 46); and
select, based on the property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria value for the sensor assembly (10) (see ¶ 47).
As to claim 2: Patten discloses the meter electronics (20) of claim 1, wherein the processing system (203) being configured to determine a property of the fluid (see ¶ 43 and 46) comprises the processing system (203) being configured to determine at least one of a density and a phase of the fluid (see ¶ 41).
As to claim 7: Patten discloses a method of selecting a zero-verification criteria for performing a zero verification (see ¶ 47) of a vibratory meter (5; fig. 1 and see ¶ 35), the method comprising:
containing a fluid (see ¶ 22) in a sensor assembly (10; see ¶ 35);
determining a property of a fluid (see ¶ 43 and 46); and
selecting, based on the property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria value for the sensor assembly (10) (see ¶ 47).
As to claim 8: Patten discloses the method of claim 7, wherein determining the property of the fluid (see ¶ 43 and 46) comprises determining at least one of a density and a phase of the fluid (see ¶ 41).
As to claim 13: Patten discloses a vibratory meter (5; see fig. 1 and ¶ 35) capable of selecting a zero-verification criteria (see ¶ 47 and 59) for performing a zero verification (see ¶ 47), the vibratory meter (5) comprising:
a sensor assembly (10; see ¶ 35 regarding the sensor assembly and further see ¶ 43 regarding the communication between the interface 201 and the sensor assembly components) containing a fluid (see ¶ 22); and
a meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43) communicatively coupled to the sensor assembly (see ¶ 35),
the meter electronics (20) being configured to:
determine a property of a fluid (see ¶ 43 and 46); and
select, based on the property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria value for the sensor assembly (10) (see ¶ 47)
As to claim 14: Patten discloses the vibratory meter (5; see fig. 1 and ¶ 35) of claim 13, wherein the meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43) being configured to determine a property of the fluid (see ¶ 43 and 46) comprises the meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43) being configured to determine at least one of a density and a phase of the fluid (see ¶ 41).
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.
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 3-5, 9-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patten US PG-PUB 2019/0234784 A1 (hereafter Patten), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 13 November 2023 in view of Patten et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0137626 A1 (hereafter Patten 626), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 13 November 2023.
As to claim 3: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a processing system (203), but does not explicitly teach:
the processing system being configured to determine the phase of the fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine a parameter of the fluid and determine the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid.
However, Patten 626 teaches a processing system (fig. 2 in conjunction with the meter electronics 20 disclosed in ¶ 41) being configured to determine the phase of a fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine a parameter of the fluid and determine the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid (see ¶ 61-63; signals indicative of fluid phase are measured, such as to differentiate air or gas bubbles in a liquid and are thus considered to be determining phase of a fluid via the drive power or drive gain and measured density parameter of said fluid).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s processing system such that determining the phase of the fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine a parameter of the fluid and determine the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid because such a determination allows a user to be notified of whether an unacceptable stability exists in a flow, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 63. Accordingly, the determination of the fluid phase and parameters associated therewith can notify a user of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 4: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a processing system (203), but does not explicitly teach:
the processing system being configured to determine the phase of the fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid, wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid.
However, Patten 626 teaches a processing system (fig. 2 in conjunction with the meter electronics 20 disclosed in ¶ 41) being configured to determine the phase of the fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid (see ¶ 61), wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid (see ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s processing system such that determining the phase of the fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid, wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid because the determining of fluid phase between one of a gas and a liquid which is a single-phase liquid can be used to determine whether a flow is stable such that a zero check process can be carried out, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 62. Accordingly, the determination of the fluid phase can also be used to notify a user of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 5: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a processing system (203) and a sensor assembly (10; see ¶ 35 regarding the sensor assembly and further see ¶ 43 regarding the communication between the interface 201 and the sensor assembly components), but does not explicitly teach:
the processing system being configured to select, based on a property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria for the sensor assembly comprises the processing system being configured to select the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria.
However, Patten 626 teaches a processing system (fig. 2 in conjunction with the meter electronics 20 disclosed in ¶ 41) being configured to select, based on a property of the fluid, a zero-verification criteria for a sensor assembly comprises the processing system being configured to select the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria (see ¶ 61 regarding the drive power, drive gain, and measured fluid density that are utilized to determine whether a zero check may be carried out based on fluid stability determined from the multiple criteria).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s processing system such that it is configured to select, based on a property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria for the sensor assembly comprises the processing system being configured to select the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria because such a selection and utilization of zero-verification criteria allows a user to be notified of whether an unacceptable stability exists in a flow, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 63. In particular, a user can then be notified of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 9: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the phase of the fluid comprises determining a parameter of the fluid and determining the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid.
However, Patten 626 teaches determining the phase of a fluid comprises determining a parameter of the fluid and determining the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid (see ¶ 61-63; signals indicative of fluid phase are measured, such as to differentiate air or gas bubbles in a liquid and are thus considered to be determining phase of a fluid via the drive power or drive gain and measured density parameter of said fluid).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s method by including the steps of determining the phase of the fluid comprises determining a parameter of the fluid and determining the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid because such a determination allows a user to be notified of whether an unacceptable stability exists in a flow, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 63. Accordingly, the determination of the fluid phase and parameters associated therewith can notify a user of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s method because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 10: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, but does not explicitly teach:
determining the phase of the fluid comprises determining that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid, wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid.
However, Patten 626 teaches determining the phase of the fluid comprises determining that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid (see ¶ 61), wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid (see ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s method by including steps of determining the phase of the fluid comprises determining that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid, wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid because the determining of fluid phase between one of a gas and a liquid which is a single-phase liquid can be used to determine whether a flow is stable such that a zero check process can be carried out, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 62. Accordingly, the determination of the fluid phase can also be used to notify a user of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s method because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 11: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, including a sensor assembly (10; see ¶ 35 regarding the sensor assembly and further see ¶ 43 regarding the communication between the interface 201 and the sensor assembly components), but does not explicitly teach:
selecting, based on the property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria for the sensor assembly comprises selecting the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria.
However, Patten 626 teaches selecting, based on a property of the fluid, a zero-verification criteria for a sensor assembly comprises selecting the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria (see ¶ 61 regarding the drive power, drive gain, and measured fluid density that are utilized to determine whether a zero check may be carried out based on fluid stability determined from the multiple criteria).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s method such that it includes steps of selecting, based on a property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria for the sensor assembly comprises selecting the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria because such a selection and utilization of zero-verification criteria allows a user to be notified of whether an unacceptable stability exists in a flow, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 63. In particular, a user can then be notified of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 15: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, including meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43), but does not explicitly teach:
the meter electronics being configured to determine the phase of the fluid comprises the meter electronics being configured to determine a parameter of the fluid and determine the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid.
However, Patten 626 teaches meter electronics (see fig. 1 and ¶ 41) being configured to determine the phase of a fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine a parameter of the fluid and determine the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid (see ¶ 61-63; signals indicative of fluid phase are measured, such as to differentiate air or gas bubbles in a liquid and are thus considered to be determining phase of a fluid via the drive power or drive gain and measured density parameter of said fluid).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s meter electronics such that determining the phase of the fluid comprises the meter electronics being configured to determine a parameter of the fluid and determine the phase of the fluid based on the parameter of the fluid because such a determination allows a user to be notified of whether an unacceptable stability exists in a flow, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 63. Accordingly, the determination of the fluid phase and parameters associated therewith can notify a user of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 16: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, including meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43), but does not explicitly teach:
the meter electronics being configured to determine the phase of the fluid comprises the meter electronics being configured to determine that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid, wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid.
However, Patten 626 teaches meter electronics (see fig. 1 and ¶ 41) being configured to determine the phase of the fluid comprises the processing system being configured to determine that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid (see ¶ 61), wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid (see ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s meter electronics such that they are configured to determine that the phase of the fluid is one of a gas and a liquid, wherein the fluid is a single-phase fluid because the determining of fluid phase between one of a gas and a liquid which is a single-phase liquid can be used to determine whether a flow is stable such that a zero check process can be carried out, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 62. Accordingly, the determination of the fluid phase can also be used to notify a user of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
As to claim 17: Patten teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, including meter electronics (20; fig. 2 and see ¶ 43) and a sensor assembly (10; see ¶ 35 regarding the sensor assembly and further see ¶ 43 regarding the communication between the interface 201 and the sensor assembly components), but does not explicitly teach:
the meter electronics being configured to select, based on a property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria for the sensor assembly comprises the meter electronics being configured to select the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria.
However, Patten 626 teaches meter electronics (see fig. 1 and ¶ 41) being configured to select, based on a property of the fluid, a zero-verification criteria for a sensor assembly comprises the meter electronics being configured to select the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria (see ¶ 61 regarding the drive power, drive gain, and measured fluid density that are utilized to determine whether a zero check may be carried out based on fluid stability determined from the multiple criteria).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patten’s meter electronics to be configured to select, based on a property of the fluid, the zero-verification criteria for the sensor assembly comprises the meter electronics being configured to select the zero-verification criteria from two or more zero-verification criteria because such a selection and utilization of zero-verification criteria allows a user to be notified of whether an unacceptable stability exists in a flow, such as suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 63. In particular, a user can then be notified of whether the conditions of the flow are suited for carrying out a zero check process (as noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61) which is only run under certain conditions, such as further noted in Patten 626 ¶ 49 and 50, and would be useful in Patten’s device because such a check can obviate needing to re-zero the vibratory flow meter, such as also suggested in Patten 626 ¶ 95.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a meter electronics wherein one of the two or more zero-verification criteria is associated with the fluid being a gas and (emphasis added) another of the two or more zero-verification criteria is associated with the fluid being a liquid, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 5.
In particular, while Patten 626 is considered to at least contemplate two or more zero-verification criteria associated with the fluid being a gas and/or a liquid (see Patten 626 ¶ 61), there is no disclosure or even suggestion that one particular of the two or more criteria are associated specifically with the fluid being a gas and another of two or more criteria being specifically associated with the fluid being a fluid. Instead, Patten 626 suggests only that a combination of several zero-verification criteria are together utilized and a multiphase fluid may result in signals associated therewith varying as also noted in Patten 626 ¶ 61, but does not explicitly teach or render obvious to the skilled artisan a specific one of the criteria being associated solely with the fluid being a gas or a liquid.
As to claim 12: The claim recites limitations largely similar to claim 6 and accordingly is also 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 for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claim 18: The claim recites limitations largely similar to claims 6 and 12 and accordingly is also 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 for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights