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. DETAILED ACTION Election Restrictions 1 . Applicant's election with traverse of species (molecule selected from the superantigens produced by staphylococcal species capable of binding at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC), and at least one type of the cell adaptive immunity; IFNƴ ; ELISA; concentration of IL6) in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) tha t: the subject matter of all species is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one species would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining species; a search and examination could be made without serious burden; the policy should be applied to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and duplicative examination . This is not found persuasive because : as indicated in the Restriction Action issued 10/2/2025, the standard for Restriction is a lack of unity one, not a search burden one. As indicated in the Restriction, the species listed do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: the species lack a special technical feature since each product (molecule; superantigen; cytokine) possesses patentably distinct functions, distinct structures, and distinct physical, chemical and functional properties requiring separate searches of the prior art; (adaptive and/or innate immunity; step; cytokines) in the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because a combination of components as a whole (for example, IL10 concentration and IL6) has particular effect. Further, the subcombination has separate utility as each individual component (for example, just IL6) has particular distinct effect; (method; method steps) in the instant case, the different methods of administration use patentably distinct steps, products and have patentably distinct effects. As to delay and expense, applicant is encouraged to elect the most pertinent invention. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9, 10, 14 , 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/2/2025. Claims 1-8 , 11-1 3 , 16-21 are under consideration. Priority 2 . Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Since a certified English translation of has not been provided for FRANCE 2003591 , until foreign priority is perfected, the effective filing date for the purposes of applying prior art is 4/8/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement 3 . The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/29/2022 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Abstract 4. It is noted two abstra c ts were submitted on the same date (10/11/2022) . It is not clear which abstract is the correct one there are no notations indicating as such. . Claim Objections 5. Claims 18, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: For improved grammar, claims 18, 19 should recite “wherein said method comprises a step of…”. For improved grammar, claim 20 should recite “wherein said method further comprises a step of…”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 11 2 CLAIM INTERPRETATION 6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 applicant regards as his invention. 7 . Claim s 1-8, 11-13, 16-21 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. See claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-21 as submitte d 10/11/2022. As to claim 1, the claim recites “the blood sample” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the claim recites “of the adaptive immunity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of such a term are. Further as to claim 1, the claim recites “determining the risk of occurrence” but does not appear to recite a n actual determining step or step beyond a “measuring” step (as recited in claim 1b)). It is not clear how one determines risk beyond measuring step. Further as to claim 5, the claim recites “molecule of superantigen type”. It is not clear if the claim intends to recite “superantigen” or what the metes and bounds of “type” are. Further as to claim 8, the claim recites “analogous to a superantigen”. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of “analogous to a superantigen” are. Further as to claim 11, the claim recites (“adaptive immunity” list). It is not clear if this recitation is the list as recited in claim 1 or not, or if such a list is the entirety of the list. Further as to claim 13, the claim recites (“innate immunity” list). It is not clear if this recitation is the entirety of the list. Further as to claim 20, the claim recites an additional step of measuring concentration of IL6 in sample which has not been incubated with a stimulus. As the claim merely recites measuring concentration without any further step, it is not clear how the step relates to claim 1, or if the step is intended as a control or not. Further as to claim 21, the claim recites “the means for detecting”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations (“means”, “detecting”) in the claim. The claim depends on claim 1 which recites stimulus. Further as to claim 21, the claim recites “the detection means being antibodies, or – of a kit comprising such detection means as defined in claim 1”. It is not clear what the “or” signifies. It is not clear if the claim recites “a method … or – of a kit” or the detection means being antibodies, or – of a kit”. Further, the claim limitation “means for detection the expression of at least one cytokine as defined in claim 1, the detection means being antibodies, or – of a kit comprising such detection means as defined in claim 1” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is noted the specification teaches: “means for detecting the expression of at least one, at least two, at least three, at least four, at least five, at least six, at least seven, at least eight, at least nine, at least ten, at least eleven, at least twelve, at least thirteen, at least fourteen, at least fifteen, at least sixteen, at least seventeen, at least eighteen, at least nineteen cytokine(s) ( in particular selected from those described above), said detection means being preferably antibodies, or- of a kit comprising such detection means, said kit preferably further comprising a stimulus as defined above, to determine the risk of occurrence of a healthcare-associated infection, preferably a nosocomial infection, in a patient, preferably a patient in a healthcare facility, within seven days following the day on which the collection of the blood sample, from which the expression of cytokine(s) is measured, has been performed from said patient” (p. 11). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states “detection means being preferably antibodies or of a kit comprising such detection means …”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, for detecting , rather “being preferably antibodies, or – of a kit comprising such detection means”. The use of the term “detecting” is not adequate structure for performing the function because it does not describe a particular structure for function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which detecting structure perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 8 . Claim s 1-5, 8, 11-13, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, 16-21 as submitted 10/11/2022. See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. Claim 1 recites an in vitro or ex vivo method for determining the risk of occurrence of a healthcare-associated infection in a patient within seven days following the day on which the collection of the blood sample has been performed from the patient, comprising: a) a step of incubating a blood sample of the patient with a stimulus, the stimulus comprising a molecule capable of binding at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity, b) a step of measuring the expression, from the stimulated blood sample resulting from step a), of at least one cytokine, the cytokine being produced by innate immunity cells and/or by adaptive immunity cells. Claims 2-5, 8, 11-13, 16-21 depend on this claim. Each of the claims is drawn, inherently or explicitly, to a molecule capable of binding at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity . Thus, the claims are drawn to compositions comprising or methods of using a genus of molecules, and having the ability to bind to binding at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity . The following quotation from section 2163 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure is a brief discussion of what is required in a specification to satisfy the 35 U.S.C. 112 written description requirement for a generic claim covering several distinct inventions: The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice..., reduction to drawings..., or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus... See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. 'A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. Thus, when a claim covers a genus of inventions, the specification must provide written description support for the entire scope of the genus. Support for a genus is generally found where the applicant has provided a number of examples sufficient so that one in the art would recognize from the specification the scope of what is being claimed. In the present case, the application teaches: superantigens ( p. 6 ) ; wherein superantigens simultaneously bind to T cell receptor and to molecule of MHC II (p. 6); including streptococcal superantigens (p. 7). Further the specification teaches wherein molecules analogous to superantigen may be made of bispecific antibodies (p. 7), but do not appear to be limited as to such. However, the application does not teach a representative number of species of the genus of such molecules. There is no apparent common structure to the different molecules that distinguishes those that bind at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity from those that do not. There is therefore a high level of uncertainty as to which molecules fall within the scope of the indicated genus. It is known in the art that binding characteristics of proteins and molecules require a high degree of particularity with respect to function, as even a single amino acid change can affect function. For example, Rudikoff et al. ("Single amino acid substitution altering antigen-binding specificity," Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79:1979-1983 (1982 ))( See 892-Notice of References Cited). Rudikoff et al. teaches that the alteration of a single amino acid in the CDR of a phosphocholine-binding myeloma protein resulted in the loss of antigen-binding function. Further, Lucchese et al. (“How a single amino acid change may alter the immunological information of a peptide,” Frontiers in Bioscience E4: 1843-1852 (2012 ))( See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited) teaches: a single amino acid change may alter the immunological information of a peptide (title). In view of the fact that the examples provided do not demonstrate possession of such molecules, and that the application has identified no structure correlating with such molecules, there is insufficient written description support for the indicated genus of molecules, and therefore for the methods of using them. In the present case, applicant has identified molecules useful in the claimed methods only by function: the ability to bind at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity . However, while the application identifies superantigens, it does not identify a representative sample of molecules that binds to at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity . T hus, the application does not identify species clearly within the claimed genus. Nor does the application provide a specific structure of the molecules within the genus that correlates with the required function. Because there is no identification of structures common to each molecule , nor sufficient representative examples of molecules by which such a structure may be determined, the application also fails to provide sufficient written description support for the identified genus of molecules through identification of a structure and function. While all of the polypeptides are required to bind to at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity , this is not alone sufficient structure to correlate with the function. This is because, the mere presence of binding domain does not demonstrate that a molecule would be able to bind to both at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity . For the reasons above, and in view of the uncertainty as to which molecules would be able to bind at least one type of antigen-presenting cell (APC) and at least one type of cell of the adaptive immunity , the application has not provided sufficient written description support for the use of the genus of molecules identified in claim 1 . The application therefore fails to provide adequate support for methods of using this genus of molecules . 9 . Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of detecting. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. 10. Claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-21 as submitted 10/11/2022. See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above , including as to claims 1, 20, 21. The instant claims are drawn to a method of determining the risk of occurrence of a healthcare-associated infection within seven days following the day on which the collection of the blood sample has been performed from the patient comprising incubating blood sample with stimulus and measuring expression of cytokines (such as IFNƴ ) , which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). The instant claims are directed to determining risk of infection comprising measuring expression of cytokines (such as IFNƴ ) . Thus, the claims describe a relationship between cytokine expression and risk of infection, which is a naturally occurring correlation. Furthermore, determining risk is a step that can be practiced in the mind and thus sets forth a mental process, which is a judicial exception. Further claim 19 recites calculating ratios of the expression of each cytokine in stimulated blood sample relative to expression of the same cytokine in control sample , which is a mathematical calculation or abstract idea . Further claim 21, recites applying means at a generic level for detecting to determine risk of occurrence. As such, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions (JE) in the form of natural correlations, mental processes and mathematical calculations or an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). The crux of the claimed method is the determination of risk of infection comprising measuring expression of cytokines and calculation of ratios. The claims such as 1-8, 11-13, 16-21 do not recite e.g., any particular treatment or prophylaxis; rather the instant claims merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities. As such, the instant claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the JE into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). Further, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 18, 19 reciting a control and claim 20, the claim s appears to recite a step and an additional measuring step for the purpose of comparing as a control, which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) as well as a mere data gathering step . As such, the instant claims do not recite significantly more than the JE (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the instant claims do not constitute patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101. 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. 11. Claims 1-8, 11 -13, 16, 18, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assant et al. (FR3101423A 1)( See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited)(See also the WIPO translation of FR3101423A1)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited). See claims 1-8, 11 -13, 16, 18, 19, 21 as submitted 10/11/2022. See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. Assant et al. teaches: in vitro or ex vivo method for determining an individual’s ability to respond to a stimulus based on measuring the expression of at least two different biomarkers from a blood sample, incubated with said stimulus [0001] (as recited in claim 1) ; taken at admission or during first week (day 3 to day 7)[0023] (as recited in claim 1) ; including patients at high risk of developing nosocomial infections [0003] (as recited in claim 1) ; functional tests measured on measuring expression of biomarkers from a blood sample of an individual incubated with a stimulus, made it possible to determine the ability of that individual to respond to that stimulus [0006] (as recited in claim 1) ; such as TNFA [0007] (as recited in claims 11, 12 , 13 ) ; CCL2 [0007](as recited in claim 1 ; it is noted the instant claims include CCL2 and TNFA as cytokines in claims 11, 12, 13) ); in contact with medical facility [0011](as recited in claim 2); over 18 [0052](as recited in claim 3); whole blood [0056](as recited in claim 4); superantigen [0027](as recited in claims 5, 8) streptococcal enterotoxin A [0027](as recited in claims 6, 7); protein secretion [0046] (as recited in claim 16) ; measuring expression from control blood sample without stimulation [0035](as recited in claim 18); calculating ratios [0035](as recited in claim 19) ; detecting biomarkers with primers and/or probes [0042](as recited in claim 21). Thus, the teachings or suggestions of Assant et al. render the instant claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In view of the teachings or suggestions of Assant et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention. Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assant et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 11-13, 16, 18, 19, 21 above, and further in view of Chap p ell et al. (US 20090325167)( See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited). See claim 17 as submitted 10/11/2022. See the teachings of Assant et al. above. Assant et al. does not teach: ELISA. Chap p ell et al. teaches: use of cytokine assays to diagnose (title); biomarker diagnostic assays [0316]; including use of ELISA [0285]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use assay as taught by Chap p ell et al. with the method as taught by Assant et al. Assant et al. teaches testing cytokine or biomarker expression, and Chap p ell et al., which also teaches testing cytokine or biomarker expression, teaches such a tool known and used in the art for such methods (See MPEP 2144.06: Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for using assay as taught by Cha p pell et al. with the method as taught by Assant et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods (measuring expression as taught by Assant et al. and Cha p pell et al.) are known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the applied prior art. Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Conclusion 1 3 . No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT M FRANCO G SALVOZA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4468 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00 to 5:00 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Thomas Visone can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-0684 . 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. /M FRANCO G SALVOZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672