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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “processing tool chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 6, 8, and 11 contain the limitation “processing tool chamber,” which is not found in the Specification. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “lane changer” and “mapping sensor.” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 6-10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 8 recites the limitation “the processing tool chamber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim s . Claims 6, 8, and 11 recite the limitation “pro cessing tool chamber,” which lacks antecedence in the Specification and not shown in the Drawings. Thus, it is unclear to the Examiner the scope of the limitation. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the processing chamber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner notes that parent Claim 11 recites “a processing tool chamber.” Given that “a processing tool chamber” is not supported by the Specification, the Examiner will interpret “processing tool chamber” as being “processing chamber.” Claims 17 and 19 recite the limitation “the plurality of lanes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blum et al. (US 5,909,994). Blum discloses; Claim 11. An apparatus for handling die carriers, comprising: a load port ( 102 ) ; and a lane changer ( 1 04 ) comprising a plurality of lanes ( paths into plurality of 106 ) located beside the load port and coupled to the load port, wherein the load port comprises: a table ( 110 ) configured to receive a die carrier ( 1 09 ) in a first direction (facing away from 170) , wherein the die carrier is operable to hold a plurality of dies; a turn stage ( 11 1 ) coupled on the table and operable to turn the die carrier from the first direction to a second direction ( facing 170 ) for the lane changer to retrieve at least one die from the die carrier for processing the at least one die in a processing tool chamber (106) ; and a storage space (region inside 112) configured to store a plurality of die carriers at a same time ( Col. 4-5 and Fig. 4 and 8-9 ) . Claim 12. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: wherein the load port further comprises a push bar ( arm of 113 ) operable to push a boat ( wafer ) carrying the plurality of dies from the die carrier to the lane changer, wherein the lane changer is configured to move the boat to one of the plurality of lanes to align the boat with an input ( 310 ) of the processing chamber and convey the boat into the processing chamber for processing the dies on the boat ( Col. 8 and Fig. 13 ) . Claim 16. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising a mapping sensor ( 170 ) configured to determine at least one of quantity information or location information (wafer center coordinates) of boats in the die carrier ( Col. 7-8 and Fig. 8 ) . Claim 17. A method, comprising: receiving a die carrier ( 109 ) in a first direction (facing away from 170) ; reading information on the die carrier to determine whether the die carrier is correctly scheduled for processing by a processing chamber ( 106 ) ; turning the die carrier from the first direction to a second direction ( facing 170 ) ; retrieving a plurality of dies (disclosed as “integrated cir c uits”) from the die carrier ( implicitly disclosed by 113 removing wafers from 109 ) ; pushing the plurality of dies from the die carrier to a lane changer ( 104 ) , wherein the lane changer is configured to move the plurality of dies to one of the (int erpreted as “a” ) plurality of lanes; conveying the plurality of dies at the same time to align the plurality of dies with different inputs (308) of a processing chamber, respectively; and loading the plurality of dies into different flowing channels (understood to be inputs, as disclosed in Applicant’s Specification, Par. 0028) of the processing chamber via the different inputs, respectively, for processing the plurality of dies in the processing chamber ( Col. 4-8 and Fig. 4, 8, and 13 ) . 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 . 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. Claims 1-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bonora et al. (US 2010/0290873). Blum discloses; Claim 1. An apparatus for handling die carriers, comprising: a load port (102) configured to load dies in a die carrier (109) into a processing chamber (106), wherein the die carrier is operable to hold a plurality of dies (disclosed as “integrated circuits”), wherein the load port comprises: a table (110) configured to receive the die carrier (Col. 4-5 and Fig. 4 and 8-9). Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the load port further comprises a storage space ( region inside 112 ) configured to store a plurality of die carriers at a same time ( Col. 6 and Fig. 9 ). Claim 4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the load port comprises a turn stage ( 111 ) coupled on the table and operable to turn the die carrier from the first direction to a second direction (facing 170) for storing the die carrier ( Col. 4 and Fig. 8 ). Claim 6. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a lane changer ( 104 ) comprising a plurality of lanes ( paths into plurality of 106 ) located beside the load port, coupled to the load port and configured to move at least one die in the die carrier to an input ( 310 ) of the processing tool chamber (interpreted as “processing chamber”) and transfer the at least one die into the processing chamber for processing the at least one die, wherein: the load port comprises a push bar ( first arm of 113 ) operable to push a boat carrying the plurality of dies from the die carrier to the lane changer; and the lane changer is configured to move the boat along at least one direction to one of the plurality of lanes to align the boat with the input of the processing chamber and convey the boat into the processing chamber ( Col. 8 and Fig. 8 and 13 ). Claim 7. The apparatus of claim 6, further comprising a mapping sensor ( 170 ) configured to determine at least one of quantity information or location information (wafer center coordinates) of boats in the die carrier ( Col. 7-8 and Fig. 8 ). Claim 10. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein: the lane changer is further configured to receive the boat from an output ( 110 ) of the processing chamber after the dies on the boat are processed, and move along at least one direction to align the boat with an additional push bar ( second arm of 113 ) associated with the load port; and the additional push bar is configured to push the boat back into the die carrier ( Col. 8 and Fig. 8 and 13 ). Blum is silent to; Claim s 1 and 12 . A radio frequency identity (RFID) reader coupled on the table and operable to read information of the die carrier to determine whether the die carrier is correctly scheduled for processing by the processing chamber. Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the die carrier is transported onto the table by an overhead hoist transport (131 and 132) in a first direction (Par. 0066 and Fig. 12). Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the die carrier is placed onto the turn stage on the table by the OHT. However, Bonora discloses an apparatus for handling die carriers (130), the apparatus comprising a load port (EFEM) with a table (129) (Par. 0048 and 0107, and Fig. 1 and 29) , and further teaches; Claim s 1 and 12 . A radio frequency identity (RFID) reader (Par. 0090) to provide automatic container identification (Par. 0090, and Fig. 24). Claim 3. The die carrier is transported onto the table by an overhead hoist transport (131 and 132) in a first direction (vertical) (Par. 0066 and Fig. 12). Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the die carrier is placed onto the turn stage on the table by the OHT (Par. 0069 and Fig. 12). Therefore, in view of Bonora’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blum’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Bonora with a reasonable expectation of success to provide automatic container identification and utilize over-head space for die carrier transport . Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bonora , and further in view of Kinugawa et al. (US 2017/0183154). Blum is silent to; Claim 8. The apparatus of claim 6, further comprising a two-dimensional barcode reader configured to identify and trace the boat that is processed by the processing tool chamber. However, K inugawa discloses a substrate transport facility ( Fig. 1 ), and further teaches the use of a two-dimensional barcode reader for detecting the coordinate markers (Par. 0042) . Therefore, in view of Kinugawa ’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blum’s disclosure to include a two-dimensional barcode reader with a reasonable expectation of success for detecting the coordinate markers . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bonora , and further in view of Yamamoto (US 2015/0243612). Blum is silent to; Claim 9. The apparatus of claim 6, further comprising: an automated optical inspection (AOI) sensor coupled to the load port or the lane changer, and configured to detect a defect on at least one of the dies in the die carrier, wherein the AOI sensor is further configured to determine at least one of quantity information or size information of the dies in the die carrier. However, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus and method for manufacturing chip parts, and further teaches the use of an automatic optical inspection machine (91) for making “a ‘non-defective’ or ‘defective’ judgment from image information” (Par. 0254 and Fig. 15). Therefore, in view of Yamamoto’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blum’s disclosure to include an automated optical inspection senso with a reasonable expectation of success for automated determination of defective and non-defective dies. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bonora , and further in view of Kuo et al. (US 2019/0067040 ). Blum is silent to; Claim 13. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the load port is configured to open a first door of the die carrier and store the first door in a predetermined location. Claim 14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein: the load port is further configured to unload the die carrier after the plurality of dies are processed; and the load port is further configured to retrieve a second door having a same model as the first door, and close the second door onto the die carrier that has been unloaded. However, Kuo discloses an apparatus for handling wafer carrier doors, the apparatus having a load port (410) (Par. 0066 and Fig. 4A and 4B), and further teaches; Claim 13. The load port is configured to open a first door ( 122 ) of the die carrier and store the first door in a predetermined location (418) (Par. 0075 and Fig. 4A and 4B). Claim 14. The load port is capable of unload ing the die carrier after the plurality of dies are processed; and the load port is further configured to retrieve a second door having a same model as the first door, and close the second door onto the die carrier that has been unloaded (Par. 0075 and Fig. 4A and 4B) . Therefore, in view of Kuo’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blum’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Kuo with a reasonable expectation of success so that a plurality of die carriers could be unloaded and loaded at the load port at different times and have doors removed and replaced without the need to match each door with its original die carrier . Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Kinugawa. Blum is silent to; Claim 15. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising a two-dimensional barcode reader configured to identify and trace the boat that is processed by the processing tool chamber. However, Kinugawa discloses a substrate transport facility (Fig. 1), and further teaches the use of a two-dimensional barcode reader for detecting the coordinate markers (Par. 0042). Therefore, in view of Kinugawa ’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blum’s disclosure to include a two-dimensional barcode reader with a reasonable expectation of success for detecting the coordinate markers . Claim s 18 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Yamamoto. Blum discloses; Claim 19. The plurality of dies are contained in a respective one of a plurality of boats (wafers), the method further comprising: receiving, via a respective one of the plurality of lanes of the lane changer, each of the plurality of boats from a respective output (310) of the processing chamber after the plurality of dies are processed; and pushing each of the plurality of boats back into the die carrier ( Col. 5-6 and Fig. 9 ). Claim 20. The method of claim 19, further comprising receiving each of the plurality of boats from an output of the processing chamber after the dies on the plurality of boats are processed ( Col. 5-6 and Fig. 9 ). Blum is silent to; Claim 18. The method of claim 17, further comprising detecting a defect on at least one of the plurality of dies while pushing the plurality of dies or conveying the plurality of dies. However, Yamamoto discloses an apparatus and method for manufacturing chip parts, and further teaches the use of an automatic optical inspection machine (91) for making “a ‘non-defective’ or ‘defective’ judgment from image information” (Par. 0254 and Fig. 15) Therefore, in view of Yamamoto’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blum’s disclosure to include an automated optical inspection senso with a reasonable expectation of success for automated determination of defective and non-defective dies. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect defects with the automated optical inspection machine so that the rate of boat processing would not be slowed down by the inspection process. Double Patenting Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 398,396 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,398,396, or made obvious by the cited claims in view of the references cited in the current art rejection. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 682,571 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11, 682,571 , or made obvious by the cited claims in view of the references cited in the current art rejection. 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 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8311 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm . 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 Saul Rodriguez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7097 . 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. /RONALD P JARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652