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. Claims 1-20 are the current claims hereby under examination. Claim Objections Claim 1 comprises the limitation “processing amplicon sequencing data and the reference sequences for the genetic characteristics” which is objected to. It should read “processing amplicon sequencing data and the reference sequences with the genetic characteristics” to make the limitation clear. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1, line 10 the limitation “genetic characteristics in genetic sample” should read ‘in the genetic sample.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim s 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim s 7 and 14 comprise the wording “comprise species identify for a genetic species,” which is awk w ard. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof . The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 11. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 8 : The claim limitation s are: “user interface configured to receive assay configuration data that individually associates reference sequences with genetic characteristics and that specifies target genetic characteristics;” p rocessing system configured to process amplicon sequencing data for the genetic sample and the reference sequences to identify ones of the reference sequences. the processing system configured to process the identified ones of the reference sequences and the individual associations between the reference sequences and the genetic characteristics to identify a presence of the target genetic characteristics in the genetic sample processing system configured to generate genetic data indicating the presence of the target genetic characteristics and indicating interpretation metrics for amplicon sequencing read depth and quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics communication interface configured to transfer the genetic data Claim15: The limitations are: assay software configured to direct the data processing circuitry to process amplicon sequencing data for the genetic sample and assay configuration data that indicates target genetic characteristics and that individually associates reference sequences with genetic characteristics to identify ones of the reference sequences the assay software configured to direct the data processing circuitry to process the identified ones of the reference sequences and the individual associations between the reference sequences and the genetic characteristics to identify a presence of the target genetic characteristics in the genetic sample alignment software configured to direct the data processing circuitry to generate genetic data indicating the presence of the target genetic characteristics in the genetic sample and indicating interpretation metrics for amplicon sequencing read depth and quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics The limitations above ha ve been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “ interface ” “system” and “software” and coupled with functional language “ to receive configuration data,” “to process the various types of data in the various limitations …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the ph r ase s “ interface ” “system” and “software” such as “user interface,” “the processing system,” or “the assay software . ” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the limitations do not appear to have specific enough structural information disclosed in the specification for performing the recited functions. The required structure is the specific algorithm for the processing and software limitations are the various algorithms in diagram or prose equivalent form. A generic processor or circuitry would not satisfy the particular structure required to disclose the computer implemented means plus function limitations identified (see MPEP 2181 (II)(B). Additionally, a detailed description of the particular user interface will also be the required structure for performing the identified structural limitation above. The specification, filed 6/8/2022 , generically recites at various paragraphs, such as [0007] or [0017] wherein an alignment process and/or alignment modules are used for performing said steps. However, the particular algorithms for performing said alignments does not appear to be described , so it is unclear wh at specific algorithm steps (e.g. structural component ) performs each of the above recited functions. Additionally, the drawings appear to generally describe at a high level some of the functionality but are missing the required details to adequately satisfy the disclosure requirements for functionally claiming said algorithmic steps. Moreover, the drawings do not appear to describe a specific user interface for receiving configuration data. F or the purposes of examination, the above limitations are being interpreted as any instructions/algorithms /interface for performing the corresponding functions as claimed will read on the required structures. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 8 and 15 (and dependents therefrom 8 and 15) recite various substitutive language for “means for” clauses. The various configured to limitations described above lack specific related structures in the specification. No specific “ interface ” “system” and “software” structures for performing these means are disclosed. See MPEP 2181: 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph states that a claim limitation expressed in means-plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” “If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc)... Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph)… the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; Knowlton, 481 F.2d at 1366, 178 USPQ at 493. Claims 8- 2 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. As set forth above, claims 8 and 15 (and claims dependent therefrom 8 and 15) recite substitutive language for “means for” clauses. No specific “ interface ” “system” and “software” “means for” clauses. The specification as filed does not set forth specific structures for performing the means recited. The various “ interface ” “system” and “software” all lack specific related structures in the specification. See MPEP 2181: 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph states that a claim limitation expressed in means-plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” “If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc). One of skill in the art would not necessarily be apprised of the specific structures to be used in the claimed system and computer apparatus . Additional 112(b) rejections: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom) comprise the limitation at lines 8-9 “processing the identified ones of the reference sequences and the individual associations between the reference sequences and the genetic characteristics ,” wherein “ the genetic characteristics ” lacks proper antecedent basis causing the claim to be vague and indefinite. It is unclear if it’s referring back to the genetic characteristics of the reference sequences or the genetic characteristics of the target sequences. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as referring back to the genetic characteristics of the target sequences. Claims 1-20 further comprises the language “genetic characteristics” throughout, such as “reference sequences with genetic characteristics” and “target genetic characteristics” etc., which has been deemed as vague and indefinite as it fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty as to the scope of said limitation. Paragraph [0018] of the specification describes exemplary genetic characteristics but does not limit the meaning. The claims are read in light of the specification. The limitation read in light of the specification fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty what the scope of said “genetic characteristics” data may comprise. Therefore, said limitation is considered to be vague and indefinite. For examination purposes any type of data relating to genetics will be considered to read on said “genetic characteristics.” Claim 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom) comprises the limitations of “transferring genetic data” which has been deemed as vague and indefinite. Claim 1 is unclear as to where the data is being transferred in the step of transferring genetic data. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required. For examination purposes, any type of transfer or transmission will be considered to read on a step of transferring the data. Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom said claims 1, 8, and 15) further comprise the limitations of “indicating interpretation metrics” and “quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics” which have been deemed as vague and indefinite. For claim 1 (and its dependents) it is unclear as to what type of data is being transferred by the wording “indicating interpretation metrics” and “quality related to the presence of the target genetic sequences” in the step of “transferring genetic data.” For example, is some type of signal transmitted that alerts something or someone to interpretation data and quality data being available or is the interpretation metrics data and quality data itself transferred? It is further unclear that if the interpretation metrics data itself is transferred, what exactly is the scope of the data that is transferred or what is the scope of the data encompassed by the phrase “indicating interpretation metrics.” It is clear it relates to the amplicon sequencing read depth and quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics, but it is unclear as to the scope of the data that indicates interpretation metrics. For claims 1, 8, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom said claims 1, 8, and 15) comprising the limitation directed to “quality” it is unclear as to what kind of data would be considered “quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics.” Clarification via clearer claim wording is required. For examination purposes with regards to transferring genetic data, any type of data related to sequencing and identifying a genetic characteristic data will be interpreted as reading on transferring genetic data. For examination purposes with regards to “indicating interpretation metrics” data, any type of data related to sequencing and the presence of a target via verification by any means or anything related will be considered to read on “quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics.” Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom) comprise the step of processing amplicon sequence data for the genetic sample and the reference sequences to identify ones of the reference sequences, which has been deemed as vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what exactly is occurring in the processing step to arrive at the result of the step, which is to identify ones of the reference sequences. The claimed step does not appear to specifically and definitively define the steps in said limitation end in the claimed result. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required. Claims 1, 8, and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom) similarly comprise the step of processing the identified ones of the reference sequences and individual associations between the reference sequences and the genetic characteristics to identify a presence of the target genetic characteristics in the genetic sample, which has been deemed as vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what exactly is occurring in the processing step to arrive at the result of the step, which is to identify a presence of target genetic characteristics in the genetic sample. The claimed step does not appear to specifically and definitively define the steps in said limitation end in the claimed result. Clarification via clearer claim wording is required. Examiner’s Comment In light of the claim rejections for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd paragraph, as set forth above, the Examiner was not able to perform a meaningful search of the prior art. Applicant is reminded that prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be applied in the next Office action in light of applicant's amendments, and that the next Office action can properly be made "Final" if these rejections are necessitated by amendment. See MPEP 706.07. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. T he claimed invention is directed to a method, a user interface, and computer to characterize a genetic sample data for an amplicon sequencing analysis system without significantly more . Analysis of independent claim s 1 , 8, and 15 : Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03). Claims 1 , 8 and 15 are directed to a method, a user interface, and computer to characterize a genetic sample data for an amplicon sequencing analysis system , which describes one or more of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process/machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary. Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04). Prong One : Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites the following: a. receiving assay configuration data ; b. processing amplicon sequencing data ; c. processing identified sequences to identify a presence of target genetic characteristics in the genetic example ; d. transferring genetic data . These elements recited in claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper and/or they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. The identified abstract steps, recited at the high level of generality, do not suggest an undue level of complexity for a person with ordinary skill in the art to be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Prong Two : Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea. As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05). Claim 1 does not include additional elements and therefor do not comprise additional steps sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) . In view of the above, there are no additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Analysis of other independent claims 8 and 15 : Claims 8 and 15 have the same analysis as above, but with the addition of the method being carried out via and interface and/or on a computer. Patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use [the idea] to a particular technological environment. In the instant claims, the computer and/or program/product amount to mere instruction to implement an abstract idea. The hardware recited by the system claims do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking “the use of the method to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. (2014). Analysis of the dependent claims: Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 , depend from the independent claim s . The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely describe additional details of types of data. Therefore , the limitations are not considered to integrate the JE into a practice application nor add significantly to the JE itself. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U. S. Patent No. 11386977. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Application Claim 1 977’ Patent A method of operating an Amplicon Sequencing Analysis Pipeline (ASAP) system to characterize a genetic sample, the method comprising receiving assay configuration data to characterize the genetic sample, the method characterized by : A method of operating an Amplicon Sequencing Analysis Pipeline (ASAP) system to characterize a genetic sample, the method comprising receiving assay configuration data to characterize the genetic sample, the method characterized by: receiving the assay configuration data that individually associates reference sequences with genetic characteristics and that specifies target genetic characteristics ; receiving the assay configuration data that individually associates reference sequences and genetic characteristics; receiving amplicon sequencing data for the genetic sample; processing amplicon sequencing data and the reference sequences for the genetic characteristics to identify ones of the reference sequences; processing the amplicon sequencing data and the reference sequences to identify ones of the reference sequences; processing the identified ones of the reference sequences and the individual associations between the reference sequences and the genetic characteristics to identify a presence of the target genetic characteristics in genetic sample; and processing the identified ones of the reference sequences and the individual associations between the reference sequences and the genetic characteristics to identify ones of the genetic characteristics in the assay configuration data; and transferring genetic data indicating the presence of the target genetic characteristics in the genetic sample and indicating interpretation metrics for amplicon sequencing read depth and quality related to the presence of the target genetic characteristics. transferring genetic data indicating the identified genetic characteristics for the genetic sample and indicating interpretation metrics for amplicon sequencing read depth and quality related to the identified genetic characteristics. Although the instant claims are not identical to the 977’ patent claims, the differences are obvious variations of each other. For example, in the first limitation the difference between associating reference sequences and genetic characteristics vs associating reference sequences and genetic characteristics that specifies target characteristics is not a meaningful difference as the limitations are achieving the same essential outcome of identifying the presence of particular sequences. The additional differences highlighted in the red vs blue font are similarly obvious differences throughout, which is more grammatical than meaningful. Additionally, the instant claims appear to be narrower in scope than the claims of the 977’ patent thereby obviating the patent claims by anticipating the more broad genus claims. Claim 8 of the instant application similarly aligns as an obvious variation of claim 8 of the 977’ patent and claim 15 of the instant application and claim 15 of the 977’ patent. Conclusion No claim is allowed Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Sims, whose telephone number is (571)-272-7540. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Moffat can be reached via telephone (571)-272-4390. Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the Central PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central PTO Fax Center number is (571)-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /JASON M SIMS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791