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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 s 1 - 5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0203983, hereinafter O’Rear) in view of Matter et al. (“Rapid Carbon Mineralization for Permanent Disposal of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions”. Science, hereinafter Matter). In regards to Claim s 1 and 5 , O’Rear discloses a system for gas separation of syngas applying differences in water solubilities of syngas components, the system comprising: a hydrogen production unit with a hydrocarbon fuel inlet operable to produce a product gas comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon fuel (see figure 2 and paragraph [0048] ; Matter discloses carrying a C 1 -C 3 alkanes feed to a syngas generator, i.e. hydrogen production unit, with stream and a reforming catalyst , for producing a gas product containing carbon dioxide and syngas (CO and H 2 ) from the feed. ) ; a hydrogen separation unit operable to separate hydrogen from the product gas to create a hydrogen product stream and a byproduct stream by solubilizing components in water that are more soluble in water than hydrogen (see figure 2 and paragraph [0051] ; Matter discloses product from the syngas generator is conducted to a syngas converter and effluent from syngas converter is carried to a separation zone where a tail gas is collected from the separation zone . The tail gas has the following composition: CH 4 , CO 2 , CO, H 2 S and Inerts (tail gas composition=product gas + additional compounds. A portion of the tail gas is contacted with an aqueous medium in a scrubber, i.e. hydrogen separation unit, to remove CO 2 by absorption, thereby generating a CO 2 depleted tail gas stream, i.e. hydrogen product stream, and a CO 2 -enriched gas stream, i.e. byproduct stream. An aqueous stream used in the scrubber is water that is de-aerated before being used for scrubbing CO 2 to increase the aqueous stream’s capacity to adsorb CO 2 . This is considered equivalent to a hydrogen separation unit operable to separate hydrogen from the product gas to create a hydrogen product stream and a byproduct stream by solubilizing components in water that are more soluble in water than hydrogen , as claimed by the applicant. ) ; and at least a portion of the CO 2 -enriched gas recovered may be dissolved in an aqueous phase and disposed in a terrestrial formation (see paragraph [0051]). Although O’Rear discloses that a portion of the CO 2 -enriched gas may be dissolved in an aqueous phase and disposed in a terrestrial formation, O’Rear fails to disclose an injection well operable to inject the byproduct stream into a reservoir containing mafic rock to allow components of the byproduct stream to react in situ with components of the mafic rock to precipitate and store components of the byproduct stream in the reservoir . However, Matter teaches carbon capture and storage (CCS) which provides a solution toward decarbonization of the global economy. This study demonstrates for the first time the permanent disposal of CO 2 as environmentally benign carbonate minerals in basaltic rocks (see abstract). The CarbFix pilot project in Iceland was designed to promote and verify in situ CO 2 mineralization in basaltic rocks (encompasses the limitation of claim 5) for permanent disposal of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. The target CO 2 storage formation consists of basaltic lavas and hyaloclastites . Due to the shallow depth of the target storage reservoir and the risk of CO 2 gas leakage through fractures, a novel CO 2 injection system was designed and used, which dissolves the gases into down-flowing water in the well during its injection. Once dissolved in water, CO 2 is no longer buoyant and it immediately starts to react with the Ca-Mg-Fe-rich reservoir rocks. CO 2 and CO 2 /H 2 S mixtures were injected into the target storage formation fully dissolved in water (see page 1312) . Analysis concluded that >95% of the injected CO 2 was mineralized through water-CO 2 basalt reactions between the injection and monitoring of wells within 2 years (see page 1313). Since O’Rear clearly discloses that the CO 2 -enriched stream may be dissolved in water and disposed in a terrestrial formation , it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the System for gas separation of syngas as disclosed by O’Rear to further disposed the dissolved CO 2 -enriched stream and dispose it in a terrestrial formation at an injection well operable to inject the byproduct stream into a reservoir containing mafic rock to allow components of the byproduct stream to react in situ with components of the mafic rock to precipitate and store components of the byproduct stream in the reservoir, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Matter teaches c arbon capture and storage (CCS) which provides a solution toward decarbonization of the global economy , wherein t he CarbFix pilot project in Iceland was designed to promote and verify in situ CO 2 mineralization in basaltic rocks for permanent disposal of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions , whereby a novel CO 2 injection system was designed and used, which dissolves the gases into down-flowing water in the well during its injection , and o nce dissolved in water, CO 2 is no longer buoyant and it immediately starts to react with the Ca-Mg-Fe-rich reservoir rocks , wherein CO 2 and CO 2 /H 2 S mixtures were injected into the target storage formation fully dissolved in wate r and a nalysis concluded that >95% of the injected CO 2 was mineralized through water-CO 2 basalt reactions between the injection and monitoring of wells within 2 years , thereby demonstrating for the first time the permanent disposal of CO 2 as environmentally benign carbonate minerals in basaltic rocks (see abstract and page s 1312- 1313). In regards to Claim 2 , O’Rear discloses wherein the hydrogen separation unit (#55) includes at least one vertical scrubbing tower with countercurrent flow of the product gas and water, the product gas flowing at about 20ºC (see figure 2 and paragraphs [0061], [0079] and [0090]-[0092]; O’Rear discloses that low temperatures during scrubbing is important because at lower temperatures, gases may become more soluble in water, resulting in higher selectivity for the removal of CO 2 over methane and other valuable hydrocarbons. Since O’Rear discloses the importance of maintaining lower temperatures during scrubbing to improve CO 2 solubility in water and hence higher selectivity for the removal of CO 2 , it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to optimize the temperature of the product gas flowing to an optimum value of about 20ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the temperature is a recognized result-effective variable which affects the solubility of CO 2 in water and hence the higher selectivity for the removal of CO 2 . ). In regards to Claim 3 , O’Rear, in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 2. Although O’Rear, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose where at least about 50% of CO 2 and about 95% of H 2 S are removed from the product gas and separated from the hydrogen product stream by being solubilized in the countercurrent flow of water in a single pass through one scrubbing tower, O’Rear, as modified above, discloses substantially the same system as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that O’Rear’s system, as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01. In regards to Claim 4 , O’Rear in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 1 . Although O’Rear, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the hydrogen separation unit includes at least two vertical scrubbing towers in series with countercurrent flow of the product gas and water, having an additional second vertical scrubbing tower is a mere duplication of parts and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. In regards to Claim 10 , O’Rear discloses wherein the hydrogen production unit includes a steam reformer or a partial oxidation reactor (see figure 2 and paragraph [0048]). In regards to Claim 11 , O’Rear, in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 1. Matter further teaches where components of the produced byproduct stream react in situ with components of the mafic rock to precipitate products selected from the group consisting of: calcium carbonates, magnesium carbonates, iron carbonates, and combinations thereof (see page 1314; Matter teaches the dissolution of preexisting secondary carbonates at the onset of the CO 2 injection which may have contributed to the neutralization of the injected CO 2 -rich water via the reaction CaCO 3 +CO 2 = Ca 2+ + 2HCO 3 - .). It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear by having components of the produced byproduct stream react in situ with components of the mafic rock to precipitate products selected from the group consisting of: calcium carbonates, magnesium carbonates, iron carbonates, and combinations thereof , as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Matter further teaches that the dissolution of preexisting secondary carbonates at the onset of the CO 2 injection which may have contributed to the neutralization of the injected CO 2 -rich water via the reaction CaCO 3 +CO 2 = Ca 2+ + 2HCO 3 - (see page 1314). In regards to Claim 12 , O’Rear, in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 1. Matter further teaches wherein the reservoir is between about 250m and about 2200m below the surface and is between 30ºC and about 325ºC (see page 1312; Matter teaches wherein the CarbFix injection site is situated about 25 km east of Reykjavik and is equipped with a 2000-m-deep injection well (HN O 2 ) and eight monitoring wells ranging in depth from 150 m to 1300m (Fig. 1) , which overlaps the claimed range of about 250m to about 2200m below the surface, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, the formation water temperature in the injection interview ranges from 20ºC to 33ºC, which overlaps the claimed range of between 30ºC and about 325ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. ) It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear by further having the reservoir to be between about 2 50m and about 22 00m below the surface and is between about 30ºC and about 325ºC, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Matter further teaches that the CarbFix injection site is situated about 25 km east of Reykjavik and is equipped with a 2000-m-deep injection well (HN O 2 ) and eight monitoring wells ranging in depth from 150 m to 1300m (Fig. 1) , and further, the formation water temperature in the injection interview ranges from 20ºC to 33ºC, which demonstrates that the safe long-term storage of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions through mineralization can be far faster than previously postulated (see page 1312). In regards to Claim 13 , O’Rear, in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 1. Matter further teaches wherein the reservoir is between about 3 50m and about 15 00m below the surface and is less than about 325ºC (see page 1312; Matter teaches wherein the CarbFix injection site is situated about 25 km east of Reykjavik and is equipped with a 2000-m-deep injection well (HN O 2 ) and eight monitoring wells ranging in depth from 150 m to 1300m (Fig. 1) , which overlaps the claimed range of about 250m to about 2200m below the surface, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, the formation water temperature in the injection interview ranges from 20ºC to 33ºC, which fails inside the claimed range less than about 325ºC, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.) It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear by further having the reservoir to be between about 350m and about 1500m below the surface and to less than about 325ºC , as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Matter further teaches that t he CarbFix injection site is situated about 25 km east of Reykjavik and is equipped with a 2000-m-deep injection well (HN O 2 ) and eight monitoring wells ranging in depth from 150 m to 1300m (Fig. 1) , and f urther, the formation water temperature in the injection interview ranges from 20ºC to 33ºC , which demonstrates that the safe long-term storage of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions through mineralization can be far faster than previously postulated (see page 1312). Claim s 6- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear in view of Matter, and further in view of Rhinesmith et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0000133, hereinafter Rhinesmith). In regards to Claim 6 , O’Rear, in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a byproduct treatment unit to treat the byproduct stream to separate and purify CO2 from other components and to increase CO2 concentration of the byproduct stream for injection into the reservoir. However, Rhinesmith teaches a system for generating hydrogen-enriched fuel gas and carbon dioxide comprising a syngas and water-gas shift system, i.e. hydrogen production unit, a water-gas compression system, a carbon dioxide recovery system, i.e. hydrogen separation unit, a dehydration system and a carbon dioxide compression system (see figure 1 and paragraph [0017]). The carbon dioxide compression system compresses the carbon dioxide recovered from the water-gas stream by the carbon dioxide recovery system to a carbon dioxide delivery pressure for carbon sequestration/storage (long-term storage of carbon in multitude of means, such as terrestrial, underground or ocean environments to reduce buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, geological sequestration in basalt formations see paragraph [0007]). The carbon dioxide that is compressed by the carbon dioxide compression system is used in particular sequestration process that has a required delivery pressure (see paragraph [0018]). Fig. 9 shows the carbon dioxide compression system , which is designed to compress the recovered carbon dioxide product stream from the carbon dioxide recovery system to the pressure required by the carbon dioxide storage/sequestration system. The carbon dioxide compression system is comprised of a carbon dioxide compression suction scrubber (#59), i.e. byproduct treatment unit to treat the byproduct stream to separate and purify CO 2 from other components and increase CO 2 concentration of the byproduct stream, a carbon dioxide compressor (#60) for compressing the CO 2 stream to the required delivery pressure established for carbon dioxide storage, i.e. injection into the reservoir, and a carbon dioxide compressor discharge cooler (#61) (see figure 9 and paragraphs [0172]-[0173]). It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear, in view of Matter, by further including a byproduct treatment unit to treat the byproduct stream to separate and purify CO 2 from other components and to increase CO 2 concentration of the byproduct stream for injection into the reservoir, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Rhinesmith teaches a system for generating hydrogen-enriched fuel gas and carbon dioxide comprising a syngas and water-gas shift system, i.e. hydrogen production unit, a water-gas compression system, a carbon dioxide recovery system, i.e. hydrogen separation unit, a dehydration system and a carbon dioxide compression system, wherein t he carbon dioxide compression system compresses the carbon dioxide recovered from the water-gas stream by the carbon dioxide recovery system to a carbon dioxide delivery pressure for carbon sequestration/storage , whereby t he carbon dioxide compression system is comprised of a carbon dioxide compression suction scrubber, i.e. byproduct treatment unit to treat the byproduct stream to separate and purify CO 2 from other components and increase CO 2 concentration of the byproduct stream, a carbon dioxide compressor for compressing the CO 2 stream to the required delivery pressure established for carbon dioxide storage, i.e. injection into the reservoir, and a carbon dioxide compressor discharge cooler , thereby improving the purity of CO 2 for storage/sequestration (see figure 9 and paragraphs [0172]-[0173]). In regards to Claim 7 , O’Rear, in view of Matter, discloses the system as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a compressor to liquefy CO 2 in the byproduct stream for injection into the reservoir. However, Rhinesmith teaches a system for generating hydrogen-enriched fuel gas and carbon dioxide comprising a syngas and water-gas shift system, i.e. hydrogen production unit, a water-gas compression system, a carbon dioxide recovery system, i.e. hydrogen separation unit, a dehydration system and a carbon dioxide compression system (see figure 1 and paragraph [0017]). The carbon dioxide compression system compresses the carbon dioxide recovered from the water-gas stream by the carbon dioxide recovery system to a carbon dioxide delivery pressure for carbon sequestration/storage (long-term storage of carbon in multitude of means, such as terrestrial, underground or ocean environments to reduce buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, geological sequestration in basalt formations see paragraph [0007]). The carbon dioxide that is compressed by the carbon dioxide compression system is used in particular sequestration process that has a required delivery pressure (see paragraph [0018]). Fig. 9 shows the carbon dioxide compression system, which is designed to compress the recovered carbon dioxide product stream from the carbon dioxide recovery system to the pressure required by the carbon dioxide storage/sequestration system. The carbon dioxide compression system is comprised of a carbon dioxide compression suction scrubber (#59), a carbon dioxide compressor (#60) for compressing the CO 2 stream to the required delivery pressure established for carbon dioxide storage, and a carbon dioxide compressor discharge cooler (#61) for cooling the CO2 prior to flowing into the carbon dioxide sequestration system (see figure 9 and paragraphs [0172]-[0173]). It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear, in view of Matter, by further including a compressor to liquefy CO 2 in the byproduct stream for injection into the reservoir , as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Rhinesmith teaches a system for generating hydrogen-enriched fuel gas and carbon dioxide comprising a syngas and water-gas shift system, i.e. hydrogen production unit, a water-gas compression system, a carbon dioxide recovery system, i.e. hydrogen separation unit, a dehydration system and a carbon dioxide compression system, wherein the carbon dioxide compression system compresses the carbon dioxide recovered from the water-gas stream by the carbon dioxide recovery system to a carbon dioxide delivery pressure for carbon sequestration/storage, whereby the carbon dioxide compression system is comprised of a carbon dioxide compression suction scrubber, a carbon dioxide compressor for compressing the CO 2 stream to the required delivery pressure established for carbon dioxide storage /sequestration and a carbon dioxide compressor discharge cooler, thereby improving the delivery of high purity CO 2 to storage/sequestration (see figure 9 and paragraphs [0172]-[0173]). Examiner notes that although O’Rear, as modified above, is silent in regards to wherein the compressor liquefies CO 2 in the byproduct stream, O’Rear’s system, as modified above, discloses substantially the same system as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that O’Rear’s system, as modified above, is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear in view of Matter, and further in view of Zullo, L. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0039833, hereinafter Zullo. In regards to Claim 8 , O’Rear, in view of Matter , discloses the system as recited in claim 1 , but fails to disclose further comprising a reaction unit to react the separated hydrogen and nitrogen to form compressed liquid ammonia. However, Zullo teaches an integrated system for producing ammonia fertilizer that can be deployed offshore. The system comprises a reactor for ammonia synthesis from a source of hydrogen and nitrogen (see paragraph [0005]). In one embodiment, a hydrogen outlet provides a hydrogen stream for mixing with nitrogen for the ammonia synthesis reaction. The processes provided herein synthesize ammonia according to the Haber-Bosch process and generally comprise mixing a hydrogen stream with a nitrogen stream to form a synthesis gas stream, passing the unreacted synthesis gas stream over an ammonia catalyst in an ammonia synthesis reactor, i.e. reaction unit, and under pressure to synthesize ammonia, and collecting the ammonia from the reacted synthesis gas stream. The reacted synthesis gas can be cooled to below the dew point of ammonia by indirect heat exchange with colder fluids. The cooling reduces the pressure and allows the ammonia to condense into liquid form. Further the condensed ammonia liquid is separated from the reacted synthesis gas and a anhydrous ammonia, i.e. compressed liquid ammonia, is obtained (see figure and paragraph s [0018]- [0019]). This is considered equivalent to a reaction unit to react the separated hydrogen and nitrogen to form compressed liquid ammonia , as claimed by the applicant. It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear, in view of Matter, by further taking the separated hydrogen stream and include a reaction unit to react the separated hydrogen and nitrogen to form compressed liquid ammonia , as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Zullo teaches a n integrated system for producing ammonia fertilizer that can be deployed offshore comprising a reactor for ammonia synthesis from a source of hydrogen and nitrogen , whereby t he processes provided herein synthesize s ammonia according to the Haber-Bosch process and generally comprise mixing a hydrogen stream with a nitrogen stream to form a synthesis gas stream, passing the unreacted synthesis gas stream over an ammonia catalyst in an ammonia synthesis reactor, i.e. reaction unit, and under pressure to synthesize ammonia, and collecting the ammonia from the reacted synthesis gas stream , wherein t he reacted synthesis gas can be cooled to below the dew point of ammonia by indirect heat exchange with colder fluids to allow the ammonia to condense into liquid form , and f urther the condensed ammonia liquid is separated from the reacted synthesis gas and a anhydrous ammonia, i.e. compressed liquid ammonia, is obtained , thereby obtaining usable and valuable materials such as ammonia for fertilizers (see figure and paragraphs [0018]-[0019]). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rear in view of Mat ter and Zullo , and further in view of Kojima et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0022887, hereinafter Kojima). In regards to Claim 9 , O’Rear, in view of Matter and Zullo , discloses the system as recited in claim 8, but fails to disclose further comprising a transportation unit to transport the compressed liquid ammonia and return the compressed liquid ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen via electrolysis for use of hydrogen as a hydrogen fuel source. However, Kojima teaches a hydrogen generator , i.e. transportation unit to transport compressed liquid ammonia, for generating hydrogen by electrolyzing anhydrous liquid ammonia, i.e. compressed liquid ammonia, to which an electrolyte is added. A negative electrode and a positive electrode are immersed in the anhydrous liquid ammonia. Hydrogen can be generated from the negative electrode by connecting a power source such as a battery or the like to the electrodes and applying voltage thereto (see paragraphs [0023]-[0024]). By using anhydrous liquid ammonia in this way, a large amount of hydrogen can be generated with a small amount of electric energy (See paragraph [0031]). The generated hydrogen is utilized as fuel of a fuel cell, i.e. hydrogen fuel source . In the electrolysis of anhydrous liquid ammonia, nitrogen is also generated in addition to hydrogen (see figures 1-2 and paragraph s [0033] -[0038] ). It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by O’Rear, in view of Matter and Zullo, by further having a transportation unit to transport the compressed liquid ammonia and return the compressed liquid ammonia to hydrogen and nitrogen via electrolysis for use of hydrogen as a hydrogen fuel source , as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kojima teaches a hydrogen generator, i.e. transportation unit to transport compressed liquid ammonia, for generating hydrogen by electrolyzing anhydrous liquid ammonia, i.e. compressed liquid ammonia, to which an electrolyte is added , wherein a negative electrode and a positive electrode are immersed in the anhydrous liquid ammonia and h ydrogen can be generated from the negative electrode by connecting a power source such as a battery or the like to the electrodes and applying voltage thereto , wherein b y using anhydrous liquid ammonia in this way, a large amount of hydrogen can be generated with a small amount of electric energy which can be is utilized as fuel of a fuel cell, i.e. hydrogen fuel source , which is a usable alternative fuel source generated from the system (see figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0033]-[0038]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8139 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm . 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 Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1051 . 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. /JELITZA M PEREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774