DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in response to application filed on 2/28/2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending. 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. Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim (s) 6, 13, and 20 each recite(s) the limitation " the vehicle’s FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(e). For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation(s) to be “ a vehicle’s ”, instead. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 1- 7 , the claims recite “ A processor-implemented method ” and thus, are a process . Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG , the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path through one or more on-board, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors; determining whether wrong way traversal of the traversal path is occurring based on a risk assessment value satisfying a preconfigured threshold ; and in response to determining the risk assessment value satisfies the preconfigured threshold, performing a corrective action to ameliorate the wrong way traversal. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “ determining. .. ” in the contexts of this claim encompass forming a judgement regarding whether a wrong way is being traversed based on a risk assessment . Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea(s). Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PE G, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”). A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path through one or more on-board, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors ; determining whether wrong way traversal of the traversal path is occurring based on a risk assessment value satisfying a preconfigured threshold ; and in response to determining the risk assessment value satisfies the preconfigured threshold, performing a corrective action to ameliorate the wrong way traversal . For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above- noted abstract idea into a practical application . Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “ monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path through one or more on-board, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors ”, and “ in response to determining the risk assessment value satisfies the preconfigured threshold, performing a corrective action to ameliorate the wrong way traversal ”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies] that merely use a computer (“ computer-implemented ”) to perform a nominal or tangential addition to the claim . In particular, the “ Internet of Things (IoT) sensors ” are recited at a high level of generality, and thus, the “ monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path… ” amounts to mere data gathering for use in the claimed process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. T he “ monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path… ” limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer because the sensors are not tied to any other limitations in the claim. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Further, t he “ corrective action ” is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting information from the “ determining... ” step(s)), and thus, the “ performing a corrective action to ameliorate the wrong way traversal ” amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106 .05(g). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG , independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation (s) of “ monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path through one or more on-board, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors ” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activit y because the specification does not provide any indication that the on-board sensors are anything other than well-known vehicle sensors operating in their expected capacity [ 0036, 0037, 0039 ] . The additional limitation (s) of “ in response to determining the risk assessment value satisfies the preconfigured threshold, performing a corrective action to ameliorate the wrong way traversal ” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activit y because the specification states that the corrective action may include “ a notification displayed on a heads-up display of the vehicle, an audio notification played to the user through a speaker ” [0043], which are conventional and well-known activities. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp ., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016 ), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim ( s ) 8-14 , the claim ( s ) recite (s) “ A computer system ” and thus, are a machine . Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 8 rises and falls with independent with claim 1. Thus , the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “ one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising ”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG , these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. T he limitation( s ) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general - purpose environment , are recited at a high level of generality , and merely automate ( s ) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG , t he additional limitation ( s ) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim ( s ) 15-20 , the claim ( s ) recite (s) “ A computer program product ” and thus, are a m anufacture. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 15 rises and falls with independent with claim 1. Thus , the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “ one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, the method comprising ”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG , these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. T he limitation( s ) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general - purpose environment , are recited at a high level of generality , and merely automate ( s ) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG , t he additional limitation ( s ) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Hence, the claim (s) is/are not patent eligible. 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, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Kashihara et al. ( US US 20230360533 A1 ). Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 15, Kashihara teaches A processor-implemented method (Fig s . 10-11, [0085-0089] ) , the method comprising: monitoring indications of wrong way traversal along a traversal path through one or more on-board, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors ( “ The surroundings monitoring sensor 21 is a sensor that detects a location and a shape of a feature around the subject vehicle, for example, and is configured by a camera, a laser irradiator referred to as a light detection and ranging (LiDAR), or a combination thereof, for example. ”, [0022], “ The road information generation unit 11 generates road information being information on a road on which the subject vehicle is traveling based on surroundings information being information acquired by the surroundings monitoring sensor 21 of the subject vehicle. ”, [0024], “ The travel state information calculation unit 12 calculates travel state information being information on a travel state of the subject vehicle based on the surroundings information acquired from the surroundings monitoring sensor 21. ”, [0029]) ; determining whether wrong way traversal of the traversal path is occurring based on a risk assessment value satisfying a preconfigured threshold (“ The wrong-way driving determination unit 13 calculates a wrong-way driving possibility P1 of the subject vehicle based on the road information generated by the road information generation unit 11 and the travel state information of the subject vehicle calculated by the travel state information calculation unit 12. ”, [0030], “ The wrong-way driving determination unit 13 determines that the subject vehicle is traveling the wrong way when the value of the calculated wrong-way driving possibility P1 exceeds a predetermined threshold (e.g., 0.7). ”, [0035]) ; and in response to determining the risk assessment value satisfies the preconfigured threshold, performing a corrective action to ameliorate the wrong way traversal (“ . A result of determination on whether the subject vehicle is traveling the wrong way is output from the wrong-way driving determination apparatus 10, and is used by a warning apparatus that warns a driver when it is determined that the subject vehicle is traveling the wrong way and a driving assistance apparatus that stops the subject vehicle in a safe place when it is determined that the subject vehicle is traveling the wrong way, for example . ”, [00 35 ]) . Regarding claim 2 , and similarly claims 9 and 1 6 , Kashihara teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the risk assessment value is incremented for each roadway indication of wrong way traversal identified in the monitoring (“ Embodiment 1 and Embodiment 2 are combinable. For example, the wrong-way driving determination unit 13 may calculate the wrong-way driving possibility P1 in Embodiment 1 as a first wrong-way driving possibility, calculate the wrong-way driving possibility P2 in Embodiment 2 as a second wrong-way driving possibility, and calculate a weighted average of the first wrong-way driving possibility P1 and the second wrong-way driving possibility P2 as an eventual wrong-way driving possibility Pr1 of the subject vehicle. ”, [0067]) . Regarding claim 3 , and similarly claims 10 and 1 7 , Kashihara teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising: in response to determining lane markings are detected while in motion and that the lane markings are a yellow line and/or double lines on a passenger side of a vehicle, incrementing the risk assessment value by a preconfigured significant amount (“ When it is clearly recognizable that the subject vehicle is traveling on a two-way road from a type of a lane marking 51 as a median line of the road (e.g., a lane marking representing no straddling for passing) or the presence of a median strip, the road information generation unit 11 may determine the proper directions of travel of the lanes using a result of recognition. That is to say, the road information generation unit 11 may determine the proper directions of travel of the lanes by whether a location of each of the lanes is to the left or to the right of the median line or the median strip. ”, [0026], “ The wrong-way driving determination unit 13 calculates a difference (hereinafter referred to as an “orientation difference Y”) between the proper direction of travel of the lane included in the road information and the direction of travel of the subject vehicle included in the travel state information, and calculates the wrong-way driving possibility P1 based on the orientation difference Y. ”, [0032], Fig. 3) . Regarding claim 5 , and similarly claims 12 and 1 9 , Kashihara teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising: in response to determining a driver side of a vehicle is close to an edge of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value by a preconfigured amount (“ a road edge detection coefficient indicating whether the road information generation unit 11 has detected a road edge is considered as the reliability N2 of the width of the road. Assume that the road edge detection coefficient has a value of 1 when the road information generation unit 11 has detected the road edge of the road on which the subject vehicle is traveling, and has a value of 0.5 when the road information generation unit 11 has not detected the road edge (e.g., when the road shoulder indicating the road edge and the like are not originally present). ”, [0060]) . 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 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 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashihara et al. ( US US 20230360533 A1 ) in view of Yoshitomi ( US 20170154229 A1 ). Regarding claim 6, and similarly claims 13 and 20, Kashihara teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the roadway indications are selected from a group consisting of roadway signage indicative of the vehicle’s current course being in the wrong direction to the flow of traffic and painted roadway indicators located incorrectly on the roadway (“ When it is clearly recognizable that the subject vehicle is traveling on a two-way road from a type of a lane marking 51 as a median line of the road (e.g., a lane marking representing no straddling for passing) or the presence of a median strip, the road information generation unit 11 may determine the proper directions of travel of the lanes using a result of recognition. That is to say, the road information generation unit 11 may determine the proper directions of travel of the lanes by whether a location of each of the lanes is to the left or to the right of the median line or the median strip. ”, [0026], “ The wrong-way driving determination unit 13 calculates a difference (hereinafter referred to as an “orientation difference Y”) between the proper direction of travel of the lane included in the road information and the direction of travel of the subject vehicle included in the travel state information, and calculates the wrong-way driving possibility P1 based on the orientation difference Y. ”, [0032], Fig. 3) . However, Yoshitomi teaches wherein the roadway indications are selected from a group consis ting of roadway signage indicative of the vehicle’s current course being in the wrong direction to the flow of traffic (“ In a situation as shown in FIG. 5, for vehicle A, since a no-entry sign H1 is detected to be on the nearside, the driver of the vehicle A is notified of the presence of the no-entry sign H1 by the no-entry sign notifying process explained above. For no-entry signs H2 and H3, the driver of the vehicle A is notified of the presence of them only if the orientation of them faces the vehicle A, because the two no-entry signs are detected to be present on the farside. ”, [0038], Figs. 2, 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kashihara with the teachings of Yoshitomi such that the roadway indications of Kashihara are selected from a group consisting of painted roadway indicators, as taught by Kashihara, and roadway signage, as suggested by Yoshitomi, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of determining whether wrong way traversal is occurring based on two well-known indicators of wrong way traversal in road vehicles. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR) , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashihara et al. ( US US 20230360533 A1 ) in view of Schmidt et al. ( US 20230196535 A1 ). Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 14, Kashihara teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a mode of transportation along the traversal path is selected f rom a group consisting of wheeled vehicles, aerial vehicles, and aquatic vehicles (“subject vehicle as shown in FIG. 2”, [0025]) . However, Schmidt teaches wherein a mode of transportation along the traversal path is selected from a group consisting of wheeled vehicles, aerial vehicles, and aquatic vehicles (“ The data collection system 105 may collect sensor data from infrastructure assets of any suitable type, such as paved roads, traffic signs, fire hydrants, manholes, utility poles, fences, cables, pipelines, etc. Such a data collection system may be deployed in a number of different ways. For instance, the data collection system 105 may include one or more sensors (e.g., a camera) carried by a vehicle, such as a land vehicle (e.g., a car), an aerial vehicle (e.g., a drone), a water vehicle (e.g., a boat), etc. ”, [0044], “ In the example of FIG. 4A, the user interface 400 includes a toggle 402, which, when activated, may cause one or more icons to be displayed along one or more road segments. Such an icon may correspond to a detected sign, and may have an appearance that indicates a type of the detected sign (e.g., stop sign, yield sign, do not enter sign, wrong way sign, one way sign, no left turn sign, no right turn sign, speed limit sign, etc.). Additionally, or alternatively, the icon may be displayed according to a location of the corresponding sign (e.g., as determined at act 210 in the example of FIG. 2). ”, [0118]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kashihara with the teachings of Schmidt such that a mode of transportation along the traversal path of Kashihara is selected from a group consisting of wheeled vehicles, as taught by Kashihara, and aerial vehicles and aquatic vehicles , as suggested by Schmidt, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of determining whether wrong way traversal is occurring of multiple well-known vehicle types . KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no prior art alone or in combination that discloses or teaches all the limitations of Applicant's claimed invention, including, and in combination with other recited limitations, in response detecting a prohibitive entry sign on each side of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value to a value equal to the preconfigured threshold; and in response to detecting a prohibitive entry sign on a single side of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value by a preconfigured significant amount (claim(s) 4, 11, 18 ) . The closest prior art of record includes the following: Regarding claim 4, and similarly claims 11 and 1 8 , Kashihara teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising: in response detecting a prohibitive entry sign on each side of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value to a value equal to the preconfigured threshold; and in response to detecting a prohibitive entry sign on a single side of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value by a preconfigured significant amount. Yoshitomi ( US 20170154229 A1 ) teaches “ In a situation as shown in FIG. 5, for vehicle A, since a no-entry sign H1 is detected to be on the nearside, the driver of the vehicle A is notified of the presence of the no-entry sign H1 by the no-entry sign notifying process explained above. For no-entry signs H2 and H3, the driver of the vehicle A is notified of the presence of them only if the orientation of them faces the vehicle A, because the two no-entry signs are detected to be present on the farside. ”, [0038] (see also [0036], Figs. 2, 5). Offenhaeuser ( US 20180218608 A1 ) teaches “ “Do Not Enter” signs 122, which refer to the one-way regulation of junction 104, are set up adjacent to exit ramp 108, on both sides. Signs 122 are oriented in such a manner, that they are clearly visible when driving in a direction opposite to direction of travel 120. The instance of wrong-way travel may also be recognized by an optical detection system on vehicle 102 and/or at the junction. ”, [0049] (see also [Fig. 1). However, the prior art does not teach or suggest in response detecting a prohibitive entry sign on each side of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value to a value equal to the preconfigured threshold; and in response to detecting a prohibitive entry sign on a single side of the traversal path, incrementing the risk assessment value by a preconfigured significant amount. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4917 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM, Mountain Time , Central Time . 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666