DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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. Status of Claims Claims 1-32 are cancelled. Claims 33-52 are new, pending and under examination. Priority This application is a national stage entry of PCT/CA2021/050955 filed on 7/12/2021, which claims priority from provisional application 63/050,396 filed on 7/10/2020. Claim Objections Claims 40 and 49 are objected to for having no conjunction (claim 40) or using “or” (claim 49) within a Markush group having “selected from the group consisting of” structure. The proper conjunction for this type of group is “and”. Claims 39 and 48 are objected to for the misspelling of doxorubicine, which needs to be “doxorubicin”. Claim 43 is objected to for missing a period at the end. Claim 44 is objected to for “and mixed in”, which should be “and mixing in..” for this step. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Written Description of “derivatives” 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 33-52 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. Claims 33, 39 and 48 use “derivatives” to refer to items such as alginate salt, hyaluronic acid salt, vitamin A and vitamin E in the claims. However, the specification does not describe a definition of “derivatives” or provide for a sufficient number of species or particular subgenre of certain types of derivatives that would show ownership of the entire genre that “derivatives” would provide. Derivatives would include a number of other compounds having various structural and functional differences that are not adequately provided in applicant’s disclosure. Applicant would have description for alginate salt, hyaluronic acid salt, vitamin A and vitamin E along with any particular species of derivatives they might disclose in the originally filed specification, however, they do not have ownership of the full genre that would be provided by “their/its derivatives”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 33-52 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. Claims 33 , 39 and 48 are indefinite for the recitation of “derivatives” where the applicant does not define derivatives or does not provide sufficient species or subgenre of derivatives (e.g. derivatives of alginate salts, derivatives of hyaluronic acid salts, derivatives of vitamin A, or derivatives of vitamin E) that would provide for what applicant means to be encompassed for the metes and bounds of “derivatives”. There may be many diverse structural and functional groups that can be added to compounds to make derivatives as well as different unique isoforms. Thus, derivatives makes it unclear what metes and bounds are provided for each of these substances since it is not clear which additional groups or isoforms would be encompassed or excluded. For the purpose of compact prosecution, if the prior art teaches a compound that can be reasonably considered a derivative of one of these items, then it will read on the claims. For example, hyaluronic acid is a derivative of a hyaluronate salt and alginic acid would be a derivative of an alginate salt. If applicant has particular species of “derivatives” of these items, they may consider a Markush grouping with these more particular and defined options. Claims 34-38 , 40- 47, 49- 52 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim without correcting the issue with the option of derivatives provided by these claims. Claims 33 and 42 are rejected as being indefinite for molecular weights of polymeric items in the claims without having a suitable definition or providing what process is used to calculate these molecular weights. The art recognizes multiple methods to calculate polymer molecular weights and each may not provide the same value. See Teva Pharm, USA, Inc vs. Sandoz Inc . where the term "molecular weight" is often found indefinite when used in patent claims without specifying whether it refers to peak (Mp), number average (Ma), or weight average (Mw) molecular weight. Because these measures are calculated differently and yield different results, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty Thus, it is unclear in what manner to read the molecular weights with the lack of guidance from applicant’s specification as they can be construed differently in the prior art based on which method of calculation is used. Claims 34-41 and 43-52 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims. Regarding claims 33 and 42 , the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It also provides situations with a broad component /range found before “preferably” is then followed by a narrow component /range after “preferably”. See MPEP § 2173.05(c) I . Claims 34-41 and 43-52 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims. Regarding claims 33, 42, 44, and 51, the use of the parenthetical “(on gel weight base)” makes it unclear if this is an optional way to read the percentage that precedes it or if applicant means this to be part of the claim. Applicant may remove the parentheses and leave the recitation of “on gel weight base.”. Claims 34-41 , 43 , 45-50 and 52 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims. Claims 33 , 40, 42 and 49 are indefinite for the recitations of “wherein the ionic crosslinkers contain one or more…” , “the gross concentration of the ionic crosslinker” and “the ionic crosslinker” after providing for a recitation of “a mixture of ionic crosslinkers” and then a recitation of “two or more ionic crosslinkers” before this “wherein” clause and concentration limitation. It is unclear if applicant is referring to ionic crosslinkers in the mixture or if applicant is referring to the “two or more ionic crosslinkers” to apply these limitations onto. If applicant is referring to the mixture, the applicant might consider recited “wherein the mixture of ionic crosslinkers contains…” and “wherein the gross concentration of the mixture of ionic crosslinkers…”. Claims 34- 39, 41 , 43 -48 and 50 -52 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims. Claims 42 is indefinite for the recitations of “ratio ranging from” as it unclear if the ratio is based on weight, volume, weight to volume, the molecular weights of the items in the different solutions or other possible types of ratios relating to ingredients in such a polymer composition. Additionally, it is unclear if the ratio in step (1) is “alginate salt to amphiphilic alginate nanoparticle” or “amphiphilic alginate nanoparticle to alginate salt”. Claims 4 3 -51 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. Claim 42 is indefinite for the use of the parenthetical (by weight) it step (3) of the claim as it is unclear if the parenthetical is a definite part of the claim or an example of how the ratio can be read where other ratios could be (by volume, mass to volume, molar, etc.). Applicant may remove the parentheses so that the claim recites “ratio by weight”. Additionally, it is unclear if the ratio should be “Solution (1) to solution (2)” or if it can also be “solution (2) to solution (1)” in reading the claim. Claims 43-51 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. Claims 35, 44, 45, and 51 are indefinite for recitations of “biosimilar” or “protein-like” or “solid-like” as these imply a type of and/or likeness to a compound/molecule without providing structure and functional significance to what the similarity or likeness provides to the compound or molecule. Note that MPEP 2713.05(b) III where words such as “type” have been held indefinite as well as MPEP 2173.05(d) with the expression of “or the like” being indefinite. The term “ highly porous structure ” in claim 41 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ highly porous structure ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although the claim provides for a pore size, highly porous appears to relate more toward pore density . However, it is uncertain if this is what applicant means to be the case and what the numerical standard for being “highly porous” would be. Applicant might consider removing the recitation of “highly” from the claim. Claim 44 is indefinite for the recitation of steps (1) and (2) when claim 42, on which it depends, already introduces a steps (1) and (2). It is unclear if applicant is redefining steps (1) and (2) from claim 42 or if applicant means to add these as further steps to the process. Applicant may amend claim to indicate “further comprising the following steps:” and then use (4) and (5) as replacements for (1) and (2). Claim 45 is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. Claim 47 recites the limitation "the active ingredient" in the claim with dependence to claim 42, which does not introduced an active ingredient. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 48 is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. Claims 50-51 recites the limitations “the biosimilar or the antibody drug” and "the antibody or the biosimilar drug" in the claims with dependence to claims 43, 42 and 33 where no biosimilar or antibody is introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 45 introduces these items, and thus, applicant might consider changing dependency of these claims to claim 45. Claims 35, 36, 37, and 50 recites the limitation “the combination thereof " in the claims with no prior indication regarding combinations of the agents . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may change “the” to “a” before the recitation of “combination thereof” in these claims. Claim 36 recites the limitation " the fatty acid-conjugated alginate " in the claim with dependence to claims 34 and 33 without a prior recitation of “a fatty acid-conjugated alginate” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 33 already seems to include “oleic acid conjugated alginate” specifically, and thus, it is also unclear if these are meant to be additional items to this one that’s already introduced. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim s 33- 36, 38- 41 , and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shen US20070202183A1 , Lee et al (Prog Polym Sci, 2012, volume 37, pages 106-126) , and Khunmanee et al (Journal of Tissue Engineering, 2017, volume 8, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731417726464 ). Shen teaches a composition and method for preparing alginate nanocapsules including steps of (a) forming a water-in-oil emulsion including an alginate in water, an oil, and at least one nonionic surfactant; and (b) separating the aqueous phase and oil phase to obtain the semisolid form alginate nanocapsules; and (c) by ionically crosslinking the alginate with calcium ions to obtain a colloidal form of calcium alginate nanocapsules for drug delivery (abstract). Shen teaches calcium chloride for an ionic crosslinking solution (paragraphs 19, 44, and 50). In paragraph 55, Shen teaches 20 mM CaCl2 (translates to 0.222 wt%). In paragraph 69 of Shen, Shen teaches 120 mM CaCl2 in the preparation of Ca Alginate nanocapsules (translates to 1.33 wt%). Shen teaches the nanocapsules being from 100-1000 nm in diameter (claims 15-18 of Shen). Shen teaches sodium alginate (paragraph 33). Shen teaches delivery of drugs and macromolecules in non-parenteral, parenteral , oral or inhalation therapies as well as intravenous applications (paragraphs 15 and 79). Shen does not teach the amphiphilic alginate, the hyaluronate salt or the molecular weight of the sodium alginate. However, Shen does provide the basis for using alginate, sodium alginate, and ionic crosslinker to make nanocapsules (a type of nanoparticle) to carry drugs or macromolecules for delivery via injection or other means. Lee teaches alginate is a biomaterial with numerous applications in biomedical science and engineering due to its favorable properties including biocompatibility and ease of gelation and that alginate hydrogels are attractive to drug delivery (abstract). Lee teaches amphiphilic alginates including dodecyl and octadecyl (C18) long alkyl chain derivatives of sodium alginate via ester bond formation (section 2.4.1). An oleic acid chain is C18. Lee teaches these structures can form self-assembled structures such as particles and gels in aqueous media and have potential in drug delivery applications (section 2.4.1). Lee teaches ionic cross-linking of alginate with calcium chloride and calcium carbonate as well as phosphates (section 3.1.1). Thus, combinations of ionic crosslinkers would be used by teachings of Lee. Lee teaches “ One or more bioactive agents that facilitate wound healing can be incorporated into alginate dressings, as these gels have demonstrated utility in maintaining local concentrations of biological factors, such as proteins, for extended time periods ” (section 5, conclusions and future perspectives). Lee teaches molecular weights of sodium alginates between 32,000 and 400,000 g/mol (section 2.2). Thus, such molecular weights of different sodium alginates would be considered in teachings of Lee. Lee provides for doxorubicin as a drug (section 4.1.1). Lee provides for protein delivery and different angiogenic molecules (section 4.1.2). Lee teaches antibody being released from alginate gels (section 4.4). Lee teaches controlling gelation rate for gel uniformity (homogeneity) with slower gelation rate making more uniform structures (section 3.1.1). Lee also provides for uniform dispersions (section 3.1.4). Thus, Lee notes making homogenous/uniform compositions within its teachings. Khunmanee teaches injectable gels of hyaluronic acid and different crosslinkers that can be used in drug delivery systems (abstract). Khunmanee teaches “ HA occurs with different molecular weights: high molecular weight (HMWHA) is greater than 1 × 10 ^ 6 Da, low molecular weight (LMWHA) is 0.8 to 8 × 10 ^ 5 Da, and oligo-HA is <6 × 10 ^ 3 Da.12 HA is a primary component of the ECM of human connective tissues ” (Modification of HA section). Khunmanee teaches alginate/HA hydrogel mixtures (Physical crosslinking section) as well as HA/sodium alginate polymeric networks (figure 10). Khunmanee teaches HA and HA composites crosslinked to form hydrogel particles are used as drug and protein carriers (HA in drug delivery systems). Khunmanee teaches HA is a promising candidate for tissue engineering because of its unique physiochemical and biological properties (abstract). Khunmanee also notes it as biodegradable and biocompatible (abstract). Khunmanee teaches that alginate/HA hydrogels have a porous microstructure (Ionic crosslinked hydrogel). One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have modified alginate nanocapsules of Shen by teachings of Lee and Khunmanee to further provide amphiphilic alginates and hyaluronic acid salts/hyaluronates as these are seen as other suitable biocompatible polymers that are combined for drug delivery systems and are able to be used with each other to make biocompatible and effective drug delivery systems. Lee further motivates other ionic crosslinking agents where one of ordinary skill in the art would use combinations. The prior art recognizes overlapping molecular weights of hyaluronate and alginates , which allows one of ordinary skill in the art to work within the ranges when producing drug delivery systems with these molecules. Claim 37 in addition to Claim s 33-36, 38-41, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shen US20070202183A1 , Lee et al (Prog Polym Sci, 2012, volume 37, pages 106-126), Khunmanee et al (Journal of Tissue Engineering, 2017, volume 8, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731417726464 ) and Allemandi WO2018234489A1 . Shen, Lee and Khunmanee teach the claims as discussed above. Shen, Lee and Khunmanee do not teach the compounds in claim 37, although the teachings allow for antibodies. Allemandi teaches nanoparticles for treatment of diseases such as cancer (abstract). Allemandi teaches bevacizumab, ranibizumab, trastuzumab, cetuximab and rituximab as monoclonal antibodies (claims 1 and 6 of Allemandi). Allemandi teaches “ The benefits of the administration of bevacizumab encapsulated into nanoparticles lie in lower serum levels of bevacizumab ” (page 49, lines 9-10). Table 2 provides for 13% loading of bevacizumab (pages 34-35). One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included antibodies of Allemandi in amounts taught by Allemandi when making nanoparticle formulations by the teachings of Shen, Lee and Khunmanee as these antibodies are seen as effective in treating cancer and that they can be included in such amounts in nanoparticles for drug delivery. Thus, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the prior art to make injectable nanocomposite gel that would contain such monoclonal antibodies as being anti- cancer active agents and achieving such formulations of applicant’s claims for delivery of these antibodies. Claims 42-49 and 51 in addition to Claim s 33-36, 38-41, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shen US20070202183A1 , Lee et al (Prog Polym Sci, 2012, volume 37, pages 106-126), and Khunmanee et al (Journal of Tissue Engineering, 2017, volume 8, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731417726464 ) and Hu et al (Journal of Wuhan University of Technology- Mater Sci Ed, 2015, volume 30, pages 1297-1303) . Shen, Lee and Khunmanee teach the claims as discussed above. Shen, Lee and Khunmanee do not teach ratios of solutions/components for methods of preparing the nanocomposites. Hu teaches “ Preparation and characterization of alginate-hyaluronic acid-chitosan based composite gel beads ” Hu teaches the aim of the study is to make composite gel beads based on natural polysaccharides (abstract). Hu teaches “ The preparation procedure was that the weight ratio of SA (sodium alginate) (2%, m/v) to HA (hyaluronate) (2%, m/v) was kept at 2:1 ” (abstract). Thus, it is envisioned to make separate compositions of alginate and hyaluronate and combine them in ratios as in applicant’s claims. Hu provides for the mixture being dipped into Calcium ion solution afterwards, but it achieves the same effect of ion-crosslinking of the compounds to make gel beads (particles). Hu teaches biomedical delivery vehicles (abstract). Figure 1 of Hu teaches forming the beads and having them crosslinked with calcium ions with showing the HA and SA being crosslinked first to form a gel bead structure. Hu also teaches ratios of 1:1, 2:1 and 1:2 for SA and HA solutions (section 2.3). The combined prior art teaches combinations of HA, alginate and ionic crosslinkers along with addition of drugs and/or proteins, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would routinely mix/combine the items when preparing a drug delivery system with the ingredients. Hu provides ratios of alginate solution to hyaluronic acid/hyaluronate solution of applicant’s claims. The order of combining/mixing the components would be routinely adjusted with the expectation of still producing gel nanocomposite drug delivery systems (MPEP 2144.04 IV C – “ See also In re Burhans , 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson , 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). ”). One of ordinary skill in the art would routinely adjust the amounts and ratios of hyaluronate, alginate, and drug/active protein to obtain functional drug/protein carriers and to adjust effectiveness of the formulation for treatment of patients (see MPEP 2144.05) . Claims 37 and 50 in addition to Claim s 33-36, 38-49, and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shen US20070202183A1 , Lee et al (Prog Polym Sci, 2012, volume 37, pages 106-126), and Khunmanee et al (Journal of Tissue Engineering, 2017, volume 8, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041731417726464 ), Hu et al (Journal of Wuhan University of Technology- Mater Sci Ed, 2015, volume 30, pages 1297-1303) and Allemandi WO2018234489A1 . Shen, Lee, Khunmanee and Hu teach the claims as discussed above. Shen, Lee, Khunmanee and Hu do not teach the compounds in claim 37 or claim 50, although the teachings allow for antibodies. Allemandi teaches nanoparticles for treatment of diseases such as cancer (abstract). Allemandi teaches bevacizumab, ranibizumab, trastuzumab, cetuximab and rituximab as monoclonal antibodies (claims 1 and 6 of Allemandi). Allemandi teaches “The benefits of the administration of bevacizumab encapsulated into nanoparticles lie in lower serum levels of bevacizumab” (page 49, lines 9-10). Table 2 provides for 13% loading of bevacizumab (pages 34-35). One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have included antibodies of Allemandi in amounts taught by Allemandi when making nanoparticle formulations by the teachings of Shen, Lee , Khunmanee and Hu as these antibodies in Allemandi are seen as effective in treating cancer and that they can be included in such amounts in nanoparticles for drug delivery. Thus, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the prior art to make injectable nanocomposite gel that would contain such monoclonal antibodies as being anti-cancer active agents and achieving such formulations of applicant’s claims for delivery of these antibodies. Nonstatutory 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 33-52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 33-61 of copending Application No. 18/409,244 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for an injectable nanocomposite with amphiphilic alginate (oleic acid conjugated alginate) nanoparticles, hyaluronate salt, alginate salt, ionic crosslinker and drug/antibody. Both claim sets provide overlapping process of making claims and using similar molecular weights and proportions of items. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7080 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST . 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 Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0581 . 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. /MARK V STEVENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613