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 .
Response to Arguments
A request was made to verify the Takashi is identified as JP-2024043713-A also published as WO-2024062855-A1 of the machine-translation and not JP-2024043714 is correct. The Applicant amends claims 1, 11, 18 and cancels claims 6, 17, Claims 21-22 are new claims. The Applicant argues in the remarks that the magnet (25) of Takashi is an integral component of the detection device (100) and does not teach a removable magnetic coupler from the mounting feature of the transmitter detection device.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10-16 under35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), in view of, Roberts (US-2020/0105429), in further view of, Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1).
Takashi teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Takashi teaches an industrial transmitter system comprising: (abstract; 11 fig.2, ‘communication part’)
a lower housing having a recess configured to receive an electronics module, the lower housing also having at least one mounting feature formed integrally therein; (14, 21, 21a, 22, 26a fig. 2, ‘mounting unit’, ‘base’, ‘support projections’, ‘cover’, ‘cylindrical portion’)
a cover coupled to the lower housing to hermetically seal the electronics module within the lower housing and the cover, and (14, 21, 21a, 22, 26a, 141 fig. 2, ‘mounting unit’, ‘base’, ‘support projections’, ‘cover’, ‘cylindrical portion’, ‘interior cavity’)
Takashi teaches the application as recited in the claims above, however, the electronics module is located in the upper portion of the housing which would be an obvious design feature of the invention for those with ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi does not teach:
an electronics module disposed within the recess; and
a magnetic coupler removably attached to the at least one mounting feature.
Roberts teaches:
an electronics module disposed within the recess; and (abstract; 102, 112A, 112B, 114, 141 fig 2, ‘transmitter’, ‘sensor housing’, ’transmitter housing’, ‘sensor circuitry’, ‘interior cavity’; ‘teaches sensor circuitry in a cavity in the lower portion housing of a transmitter’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Roberts to provide a lower housing for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Roberts does not teach:
a magnetic coupler removably attached to the at least one mounting feature.
Breiwa teaches:
a magnetic coupler removably attached to the at least one mounting feature.(abstract; 107, 111 fig(s) 2, 13, ‘Mating magnetic attachment unit that detaches’, ‘mounting side’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Breiwa to provide a magnetic coupler for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
In regards to claim 7, Takashi, Roberts, & Breiwa teach a system of claim 6, (see claim rejection 6) wherein the magnetic coupler includes a rectangular block portion sized and shaped to be inserted into the at least one mounting feature. (Takashi: para(s) [0021-0023], 14, 21, 25 fig. 2, ‘mounting portion’, ‘base’ ‘magnet’)
In regards to claim 10, Takashi, Roberts, & Breiwa teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the mounting feature is configured to mount the system in accordance with a plurality of different mounting techniques. (Takashi: para [0031])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), Roberts (US-2020/0105429), Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1), in view of, Hwi (KR-20160145973).
Takashi, Roberts, Breiwa teach:
In regards to claim 2, Takashi, Roberts, Breiwa teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa don’t teach:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of arcuate surfaces configured to engage a pipe.
Hwi teaches:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of arcuate surfaces configured to engage a pipe. (para [0028-0029]; fig. 5; ‘adjustment members (140) extend downward from a main body (110), wherein the adjustment members (140) can be adapted to conform to the shape and size of a structure.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hwi to provide arcuate surfaces to engage a pipe for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
In regards to claim 3, Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa don’t teach:
teaches wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of internal corners configured to receive a rectangular bracket.
Hwi teaches:
teaches wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of internal corners configured to receive a rectangular bracket. (Hwi: para [0028-0029]; fig. 5; ‘adjustment members (140) extend downward from a main body (110), wherein the adjustment members (140) can be adapted to conform to the shape and size of a structure.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hwi to provide arcuate surfaces to engage a pipe for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
In regards to claim 4, Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa don’t teach:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of slots configured to receive a mounting band.
Hwi teaches:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of slots configured to receive a mounting band. (Hwi: para(s) [0021-0022] fig. 1, ‘chain members (120) connected to the main body (110))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hwi to provide arcuate surfaces to engage a pipe for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), Roberts (US-2020/0105429), Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1), in view of, Oh (KR 10-2157000)).
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa teach:
In regards to claim 5, Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa don’t teach:
wherein the at least one includes an internally-threaded mounting aperture.
Oh teaches:
wherein the at least one includes an internally-threaded mounting aperture. (Oh: para [0051]; fig 2; ‘a displacement measurement module (100) includes a nut (n))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Oh to provide the configuration described for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), Roberts (US-2020/0105429), Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1), in view of, Oh (KR 10-2157000).
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa teach:
In regards to claim 8, Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa teach a system of claim 7, (see claim rejection 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi, Roberts & Breiwa don’t teach:
wherein the magnetic coupler includes an aperture sized to pass a fastener.
Oh teaches:
wherein the magnetic coupler includes an aperture sized to pass a fastener. (Oh: para(s) [0068-0069]; fig. 2, ‘removable magnet (120) includes an aperture through which a bolt (b) can pass.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Oh to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), Oh (KR 10-2157000), in view of, Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1).
Takashi teaches:
In regards to claim 11, Takashi teaches an industrial transmitter system comprising: (abstract; 11 fig.2, ‘communication part’)
an electronics module disposed within the inline housing; and (14, 21, 21a, 22, 26a fig. 2, ‘mounting unit’, ‘base’, ‘support projections’, ‘cover’, ‘cylindrical portion’; 10-11, 15 fig. 2, ‘detection part’, ‘circuit board’, ‘connector’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi does not teach:
an inline housing having a first end and a second end, the inline housing having an integral mounting feature configured to receive a captured nut and position the captured nut in alignment with a mounting aperture of the mounting feature;
wherein the mounting feature includes a plurality of support posts surrounding the mounting aperture.
Oh teaches:
an inline housing having a first end and a second end, the inline housing having an integral mounting feature configured to receive a captured nut and position the captured nut in alignment with a mounting aperture of the mounting feature; and (Oh: para [0051] n, FO1, FO2, 100 fig. 2, ‘nut (n)’, ‘displacement measurement module’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Oh to provide the configuration described for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Oh does not teach:
wherein the mounting feature includes a plurality of support posts surrounding the mounting aperture.
Breiwa teaches:
wherein the mounting feature includes a plurality of support posts surrounding the mounting aperture (embodiment 19 fig(s) B-C) teach a magnetic shield (120) and a magnet interface (107) an aperture with a stud (130) and conductor contacts (163) provided on one or more lateral sides para [0114] coupled to a lower cover)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Breiwa to provide a magnetic coupler for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
In regards to claim 12, Takashi, Breiwa & Oh teach a system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein the electronics module includes measurement circuitry. (Takashi: 12 fig. 2, ‘circuit board’)
In regards to claim 13, Takashi, Breiwa & Oh teach a system of claim 12, (see claim rejection 12) Oh teaches and further comprising a sensor module threadably engaged with one of the first and second ends of the inline housing, the sensor module being operably coupled to the measurement circuitry. (Oh: para(s) [0051, 0068-0069]; n, FO1, FO2, 100 fig. 2, ‘nut (n), displacement measurement module’; ‘removable magnet (120) includes an aperture through which a bolt (b) can pass.’)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), Oh (KR 10-2157000), Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1), in view of, Hwi (KR-20160145973).
Takashi, Breiwa & Oh teach:
In regards to claim 14, Takashi, Breiwa & Oh teach a system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi, Brewia & Oh to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi, Breiwa & Oh do not teach:
wherein the mounting feature includes a slot configured to receive the captured nut.
Hwi teaches:
wherein the mounting feature includes a slot configured to receive the captured nut. (Hwi: para(s) [0021-0022] fig. 1, ‘chain members (120) connected to the main body (110))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hwi to provide arcuate surfaces to engage a pipe for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
In regards to claim 15, Takashi, Breiwa, Oh, & Hwi teach a system of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) wherein the mounting feature engages a plurality of sides of the captured nut to prevent rotation of the captured nut. (Oh: (para(s) [0051-0075]; fig. 2, ‘the displacement measurement module (100) includes a nut runner socket (130), wherein the nut runner socket (130) prevents rotation of the captured nut (n).’)
In regards to claim 16, Takashi, Breiwa, Oh, & Hwi teach a system of claim 15, (see claim rejection 15) Oh teaches wherein the mounting feature includes a wall configured to create a blind hole with the mounting aperture. (Oh: para [0051]; fig 2, ‘the displacement measurement module (100) includes the nut (n).’)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP-2024043714), Roberts (US-2020/0105429), Breiwa (US-20160259374-A1), in view of, Hwi (KR-20160145973).
In regards to claim 21, Takashi teaches an industrial transmitter system comprising: (abstract; 11 fig.2, ‘communication part’)
a lower housing having a recess configured to receive an electronics module, the lower housing also having at least one mounting feature formed integrally therein; (14, 21, 21a, 22, 26a fig. 2, ‘mounting unit’, ‘base’, ‘support projections’, ‘cover’, ‘cylindrical portion’)
a cover coupled to the lower housing to hermetically seal the electronics module within the lower housing and the cover; (14, 21, 21a, 22, 26a, 141 fig. 2, ‘mounting unit’, ‘base’, ‘support projections’, ‘cover’, ‘cylindrical portion’, ‘interior cavity’)
Takashi teaches the application as recited in the claims above, however, the electronics module is located in the upper portion of the housing which would be an obvious design feature of the invention for those with ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Takashi to provide for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Takashi does not teach:
an electronics module disposed within the recess;
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of arcuate surfaces configured to engage a pipe; and
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of internal corners configured to receive a rectangular bracket.
Roberts teaches:
an electronics module disposed within the recess; and (abstract; 102, 112A, 112B, 114, 141 fig 2, ‘transmitter’, ‘sensor housing’, ’transmitter housing’, ‘sensor circuitry’, ‘interior cavity’; ‘teaches sensor circuitry in a cavity in the lower portion housing of a transmitter’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Roberts to provide a lower housing for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Roberts does not teach:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of arcuate surfaces configured to engage a pipe; and
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of internal corners configured to receive a rectangular bracket.
Breiwa teaches:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of internal corners configured to receive a rectangular bracket. (embodiment 19 fig(s) B-C) teach a magnetic shield (120) and a magnet interface (107) an aperture with a stud (130) and conductor contacts (163) provided on one or more lateral sides para [0114] coupled to a lower cover)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Breiwa to provide a magnetic coupler for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
Breiwa does not teach:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of arcuate surfaces configured to engage a pipe; and
Hwi teaches:
wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of arcuate surfaces configured to engage a pipe; and (para [0028-0029]; fig. 5; ‘adjustment members (140) extend downward from a main body (110), wherein the adjustment members (140) can be adapted to conform to the shape and size of a structure.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hwi to provide arcuate surfaces to engage a pipe for a transmitter system to comprise sensor electronics that are sealed and the device to be mounted on the interface of interest.
In regards to claim 22, Takashi, Roberts, Breiwa & Hwi teach an industrial transmitter system of claim 21, (see claim rejection 21) wherein the at least one mounting feature includes a pair of slots configured to receive a mounting band. (Breiwa: embodiment 19 fig(s) B-C) teach a magnetic shield (120) and a magnet interface (107) an aperture with a stud (130) and conductor contacts (163) provided on one or more lateral sides para [0114] coupled to a lower cover)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9, 16, 18-20 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.
A PE2E-Search and similarity search was completed by the Examiner 3/14/2026. The Examiner did not find the recitation of claims 9 and 12 where the aperture includes a counterbore configured to allow a head of the fastener to sit below a surface of the magnetic coupler.; and wherein the mounting feature includes a plurality of support posts surrounding the mounting aperture. Claims 18 through 20 are dependent on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Li (CN-219914484), Strei (WO-2021257306), Klein (US-20210167589), Chen (US-20200221593), and Jagiella (US-10955307) references further describe a sensor/transmitter housing, and mount as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights