DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim 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 15, 16, 20, 25, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as will be detailed below: Step 1: Claim 15 is a method claim. Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 15 recites “ determining whether the fluid sample comprises the analyte of interest by observing the sensor”, which is an abstract idea in that this determination could be done via a mental process or using a black box computer. Step 2A, prong 2: The abstract idea (i.e. the determining step) has not been integrated into a particular practical application. While The claims do recite contacting a sample with the sensor, and details of the sensor which are then used in the determination/observation. Therefore, the limitations are gathering data to be used in the abstract idea which is insignificant extra-solution (pre- solution) activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? Here, we look to the elements other than the abstract idea to see if there is significantly more. The claim recites details of the sensor (i.e. a structure comprising a plurality of surficial walls that define a plurality of air gaps in the structure, the structure configured such that both a fluid sample lacking the analyte of interest and a fluid sample comprising the analyte of interest are able to penetrate the plurality of air gaps; and (ii) a binding material, present on the plurality of surficial walls ) but these sensor details are still reasonably broad and would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, Hu ( WO 2018231962 A1 ) discloses a 3D porous photonic cell structure 100 for use as a colorimetric sensor is shown in FIGURE 1A , wherein the cell structure 100 (i.e. the sensor) includes a base substrate 110 having air voids/pores 105 arrayed on the base substrate 110 that is a solid structure having a plurality of faces (i.e. a structure having a plurality of surficial walls defining air gaps ) (see [0067]). Hu also discloses that the sensor (100) further includes a binding material (wherein the base substrate 110 may additionally be coated with one or more thin layers of organic, inorganic, or hybrid molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) materials 115 ) (see [0086])/ In addition, Yamamichi et al ( US PGPub 20090009756 A1 ) also discloses a sensor (shown in Figure 1A) comprising a structure ( interpreted as reaction region 103) having a plurality of surficial walls (shown in Figure 1A) defining air gaps (i.e. a plurality of through-holes 104 ) and a binding material (i.e. metal element-containing nanoparticles 105), wherein a ny interaction of a target substance with the trap is possible, insofar as the chip of the present invention can detect the amount of a physical/chemical change before and after the binding. More preferably, such interaction is an "antigen-antibody reaction", an "antigen-aptamer (RNA fragment with a specific structure)", a "ligand-receptor interaction", a "DNA hybridization", a "DNA-protein (such as a transcription factor) interaction", a "lectin-sugar chain interaction" or the like (see [0059]-[0061] and [0103]). Therefore claims 15,16, 20, 25, 26 and 30 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3 , 9, 10, 12-16, 25, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu ( WO 2018 / 231962 ) , hereinafter Hu ‘962 . Regarding Claim 1, Hu ‘962 teaches a sensor (referred to as 3D porous photonic cell structure 100 , used as a colorimetric sensor) for detecting an analyte of interest in a fluid sample (see abstract, [0067] and Figure 1 b ) , the sensor comprising: a structure comprising a plurality of surficial walls (such as base substrate 110 and cell structure 100’s side walls) that define a plurality of air gaps (referred to as air voids/pores 105) in the structure (see Figure 1B and [0068]) , the structure configured such that both a fluid sample lacking the analyte of interest and a fluid sample comprising the analyte of interest are able to penetrate the plurality of air gaps (see [0085]-[0088]) ; and a binding material (referred to as imprinted polymer (MIP) materials 115 ) , present on the plurality of surficial walls, that binds the analyte of interest, wherein the sensor is configured such that, when the analyte of interest binds to the binding material, a change in surface energy (i.e. wettability and/or color changes) results within the plurality of surficial walls (see [0064]-[0068], [0088]-[0091] and [0123]). Regarding Claim 3 , Hu ‘962 teaches that the change in surface energy that results within the plurality of surficial walls (i.e. turning the walls hydrophobic) allows the fluid sample comprising the analyte of interest to exit the air gaps (while not allowing fluids without the target analyte to pass through) (see [0085]-[0123]). Regarding Claim 9, Hu ‘962 teaches that the binding materials are MIP materials (or aptamer materials or other binding materials such as coordination complex) (see [0095]). Regarding Claim 10, Hu ‘962 teaches that the binding material further comprises at least one of a specific binding enhancement layer or an additional layer to reduce non-specific binding from non-target substances contained in the fluid sample (such as a hydrophobic coating layer) (see [0095], [0104], [0123] and [0133]). Regarding Claims 12-13, Hu ‘962 teaches that the binding material is at least one of: produced from hydrophobic components, produced from hydrophilic components that are coated with a hydrophobic layer, or combinations thereof (i.e. the plurality of surficial walls are coated by a hydrophobic material) (see [0095], [0104], [0123] and [0133]). Regarding Claim 14, Hu ‘962 , Hu teaches that the sensor (100) further comprises a colorimetric indicator (since the binding material induces a color change) (see [0064]-[0068] and [0095]). Regarding Claim 15, Hu ‘962 teaches a method for detecting an analyte of interest in a fluid sample (see abstract) , the method comprising: contacting a sensor (referred to as 3D porous photonic cell structure 100, used as a colorimetric sensor) with a fluid sample (see [0064]-[00689]) , the sensor comprising: ( i ) a structure comprising a plurality of surficial walls (such as base substrate 110 and cell structure 100’s side walls) that define a plurality of air gaps (referred to as air voids/pores 105) in the structure (see Figure 1B and [0068]), the structure configured such that both a fluid sample lacking the analyte of interest and a fluid sample comprising the analyte of interest are able to penetrate the plurality of air gaps (see [0085]-[0088]); and a binding material (referred to as imprinted polymer (MIP) materials 115), present on the plurality of surficial walls, that binds the analyte of interest, wherein the sensor is configured such that, when the analyte of interest binds to the binding material, a change in surface energy (i.e. wettability and/or color changes) results within the plurality of surficial walls (see [0064]-[0068], [0088]-[0091] and [0123]) ; (b) determining whether the fluid sample comprises the analyte of interest by observing the sensor (i.e. if the sensor displays a color change) (see [0089] and [0095]). Regarding Claim 16, Hu ‘962 teaches that step b) comprises observing a color exhibited by the sensor (see [0089] and [0095]). Regarding Claim 25, Hu ‘962 teaches that the binding materials are MIP materials (or aptamer materials or other binding materials such as coordination complex) (see [0095]). Regarding Claim 26, Hu ‘962 teaches that the binding material further comprises at least one of a specific binding enhancement layer or an additional layer to reduce non-specific binding from non-target substances contained in the fluid sample (such as a hydrophobic coating layer) (see [0095], [0104], [0123] and [0133]). Regarding Claim 30, Hu ‘962 teaches that the sensor (100) further comprises a colorimetric indicator (since the binding material induces a color change) (see [0064]-[0068] and [0095]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu ‘962 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sengupta et al (US PGPub 2013 / 0157254 ). Regarding Claim 2, Hu does not explicitly disclose that the change in surface energy that results within the plurality of surficial walls prevents the fluid sample comprising the analyte of interest from exiting the air gaps. However, in the analogous art of SERS apparatus and methods, Sengupta et al teaches that many test samples the method will desirably include the further step of treating a collected or sampled material or substance (e.g., a test sample) so as to separate the "at least one" target analyte from other components, and to thereby produce an "analyte sample." The residual "other" components will normally constitute all chemicals, biochemicals, and biologicals present in the collected or sampled material that may interfere significantly with analysis. Such interferences include hindering flow of the target analyte(s) to the binding agents, deactivating the SER-active materials, and/or producing spectra that would substantially prevent the spectrum of the at least one target analyte from being observed. Such a further treating step may include the use of an extracting or degrading chemical effective to make the "at least one" target analyte available, and means for separating the at least one target analyte from the chemical used for extracting or degrading (see [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surficial walls of Hu by treating these walls to make the "at least one" target analyte available for further analysis. Claim s 4- 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu ‘962 as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hu (WO 2018107038 ), hereinafter Hu ‘038 Regarding Claims 4-5 and 20, Hu ‘962 discloses the sensor and method of claims 1 and 15. However, Hu ‘962 does not disclose a plurality of first structural elements coupled to at least one surficial wall, the at least one surficial wall comprising a first order dimension and the plurality of first structural elements comprising a second order dimension of lower order than the first order dimension. , wherein the first order dimension comprises a micrometer scale and the second order dimension comprises a nanometer scale. However, in the analogous art of surface plasmon resonance sensors, Hu ‘038 teaches a colorimetric sensor for detecting an analyte of interest in a fluid sample. In some embodiments, the sensor includes a metal layer disposed upon a substrate and defining a plurality of holes, a plurality of nano structures (e.g., nanoposts and/or nanospheres) each of which includes a first portion disposed within a respective one of the holes, a corresponding plurality of metal deposits (e.g., metal nanodisks and/or metal caps) spaced apart from the metal layer each of which is disposed upon a second portion of a respective one of the nanostructures (e.g., on a top surface of any of the nanoposts and/or on a top surface of any of the nanospheres), and a molecularly imprinted polymer layer that covers at least one of the metal layer, the nanostructures, and the metal deposits (see [0009]). Furthermore, Hu ‘038 teaches that a ccording to the Mie theory, the size and shape of the metal surfaces, e.g., nanoposts , nanopillars, nanospheres, and the like, also affects the plasmon resonance. Likewise, periodicity between adjacent metal surfaces also affects the plasmon resonance. For example, the closer the metallic surfaces are to each other, the greater the coupling between the interacting dipoles of the two metallic surfaces. The greater the interactive dipole coupling, the greater the increase of the plasmon resonant wavelength. In contrast, the more distant the metallic surfaces are from one another, the weaker the coupling between the interacting dipoles, resulting in a decrease of the plasmon resonant wavelength (see [0057]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surficial walls of Hu ‘962 by incorporating a plurality of nano structures and/or metal deposits (as taught by Hu ‘038, having a second order dimension on a nanometer scale) onto the walls for the benefit of enabling changing the plasmon resonant wavelengths and therefore the plasmon resonance. Regarding Claim 6, Hu ‘962 does not explicitly disclose that a plurality of second structural elements coupled to at least one first structural element, the plurality of second structural elements comprising a third order dimension of lower order than the second order dimension. However, in the analogous art of surface plasmon resonance sensors, Hu ‘038 teaches a colorimetric sensor for detecting an analyte of interest in a fluid sample. In some embodiments, the sensor includes a metal layer disposed upon a substrate and defining a plurality of holes, a plurality of nano structures (e.g., nanoposts and/or nanospheres) each of which includes a first portion disposed within a respective one of the holes, a corresponding plurality of metal deposits (e.g., metal nanodisks and/or metal caps) spaced apart from the metal layer each of which is disposed upon a second portion of a respective one of the nanostructures (e.g., on a top surface of any of the nanoposts and/or on a top surface of any of the nanospheres), and a molecularly imprinted polymer layer that covers at least one of the metal layer, the nanostructures, and the metal deposits (see [0009]). Furthermore, Hu ‘038 teaches that a ccording to the Mie theory, the size and shape of the metal surfaces, e.g., nanoposts , nanopillars, nanospheres, and the like, also affects the plasmon resonance. Likewise, periodicity between adjacent metal surfaces also affects the plasmon resonance. For example, the closer the metallic surfaces are to each other, the greater the coupling between the interacting dipoles of the two metallic surfaces. The greater the interactive dipole coupling, the greater the increase of the plasmon resonant wavelength. In contrast, the more distant the metallic surfaces are from one another, the weaker the coupling between the interacting dipoles, resulting in a decrease of the plasmon resonant wavelength (see [0057]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surficial walls of Hu ‘962 by incorporating a plurality of second nano structures and/or metal deposits, connected to the first nano structures (as taught by Hu ‘038, having a second order dimension on a nanometer scale) onto the walls for the benefit of enabling changing the plasmon resonant wavelengths and therefore the plasmon resonance. Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hu ‘962 and Hu ‘038 teaches that The nanostructures (which are the first and second structural elements) may be configured to provide a periodic distribution from about 10 nanometers to about 2 micrometers. In some applications, a first subset of the nanostructures is configured as a first sub-pixel to produce a first color and a second subset of the nanostructures is configured as a second sub-pixel to produce a second color. In some variations, the nanostructures of the first subset include a dimension(s) that differs from the dimension(s) of the nanostructures of the second subset and/or the nanostructures of the first subset are arranged to have a periodicity that differs from the periodicity of the nanostructures of the second subset (see [0012]). Furthermore, while the combination of Hu ‘962 and Hu ‘038 does not explicitly disclose that the third order dimension may be millimeters it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the order dimensions of the structural elements such that the periodicity also varies. Furthermore, it is noted that in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu ‘962 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stuke et al (US PGPub 2012 / 0236298 ). Regarding Claim 8, Hu ‘962 does not teach that the surficial walls of the structure are roughened. However, in the analogous art of Raman scattering, Stuke et al teaches that Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS) enhances the Raman scattering through interactions of scattered photons with rough metal surfaces or nanoparticles. Such enhancement is believed to result from resonances in localized surface plasmons interacting with photons and analytes (see [0001]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roughened the surficial walls of the structure for the benefit of enhancing Raman Scattering. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baumberg et al (US PGPub 2009 / 0273779 ). Regarding Claim 8, Hu ‘962 does not teach that the surficial walls of the structure are roughened. However, in the analogous art of Raman scattering structures, Baumberg et al teaches that a roughened surface is found to give rise to an enhanced Raman signal, and the technique of using the roughened surface to obtain a Raman spectrum is known as surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) (see [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roughened the surficial walls of the structure for the benefit of enhancing Raman Scattering. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu ‘962 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view o f Zhang et al (US PGPub 2007 / 0155021 ). Regarding Claim 11, Hu ‘962 does not teach a plurality of polymer brushes coupled to the plurality of surficial walls. However, in the analogous art of analyte detection, Zhang et al teaches the use of polymeric brushes, wherein a "polymeric brush" ordinarily refers to polymer films comprising chains of polymers that are attached to the surface of a substrate. The polymeric brush could be a functionalized polymer films which comprise functional groups such as hydroxyl, amino, carboxyl, thiol, amide, cyanate, thiocyanate, isocyanate and isothio cyanate groups, or a combination thereof, on the polymer chains at one or more predefined regions. The polymeric brushes of the embodiment of the invention are capable of attachment or stepwise synthesis of macromolecules thereon (see [0038]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the walls of Hu ‘962 by coupling polymeric brushes to them (as taught by Zhang et al) for the benefit of enhancing the walls capability for attachment or stepwise synthesis of macromolecules thereon. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu ‘962 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view o f Liu et al (US PGPub 2019 / 0339266 ). Regarding Claim 11, Hu ‘962 does not teach a plurality of polymer brushes coupled to the plurality of surficial walls. However, in the analogous art of characterizing the binding characteristic of at least one protein molecule to a detectably labeled probe , Liu et al teaches that proteins are immobilized on the surface using a hydrophilic self-assembled monolayer, a hydrophilic polymer brush, a zwitterionic polymer brush or a nitrile coating (see [0009] and [0083]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the walls of Hu ‘962 by coupling polymeric brushes to them (as taught by Zhang et al) for the benefit of enhancing the binding efficiency of the walls such that proteins (analytes) may be immobilized more easily. 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1, 9 and 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/ 487 , 555 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the reference application also teaches a sensor for detecting an analyte of interest in a fluid sample, the sensor comprising :a structure including a plurality of walls that define a plurality of air gaps in the structure, wherein the plurality of walls include a plurality of surfaces ( i.e. surficial walls) ; and a binding material, where the binding material is coated on the plurality of walls to bind to an analyte of interest; and wherein an initial surface energy of at least a portion of the plurality of surfaces of the plurality of walls changes when the analyte of interest binds with the binding material. Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, claim 12 of the reference application also recites “ wherein the binding material includes a plurality of molecular recognition receptors that include at least one of molecularly-imprinted polymer (MIPs), aptamers, slow off-rate modified aptamers ( SOMAmers ), affirmers, antibodies, peptides, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA), peptide nucleic acid (PNA), oligonucleotides, coordination complex, metal organic framework (MOF) materials, and porous coordination polymer materials. ” Regarding Claim 14 of the instant application, claim 15 of the reference application also discloses a colorimetric reporter, wherein the change of the initial surface energy of at least the portion of the plurality of surfaces of the plurality of walls is visually detectable with a color change. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yamamichi et al ( US PGPub 20090009756 A1 ) also discloses a sensor (shown in Figure 1A) comprising a structure (interpreted as reaction region 103) having a plurality of surficial walls (shown in Figure 1A) defining air gaps (i.e. a plurality of through-holes 104 ) and a binding material (i.e. metal element-containing nanoparticles 105), wherein a ny interaction of a target substance with the trap is possible, insofar as the chip of the present invention can detect the amount of a physical/chemical change before and after the binding. More preferably, such interaction is an "antigen-antibody reaction", an "antigen-aptamer (RNA fragment with a specific structure)", a "ligand-receptor interaction", a "DNA hybridization", a "DNA-protein (such as a transcription factor) interaction", a "lectin-sugar chain interaction" or the like (see [0059]-[0061] and [0103]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNIFER WECKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1109 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30AM - 6 PM EST M-F . 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 Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1254 . 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. /JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797