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 § 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 1- 22 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the largest contacting area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a largest contacting area”. By their dependency, the following claims are also rejected: 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/6/1, 8/7/6/1, 9. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the base is essentially made up of electrically conductive materials”. The term “ essentially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite , as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “ the base is made up of electrically conductive materials” . By their dependency, the following claims are also rejected: 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/6/1, 8/7/6/1, 9. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the base is essentially made up of metal”. The term “ essentially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite , as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “the base is made up of metal”. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the center region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a center region”. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the lower surface is substantially flat”. The term “ substantially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite , as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “the lower surface is flat”. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the diameter of the base ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a diameter of the base”. Claim 8 recites the limitation " the diameter of the feedthrough ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a diameter of the feedthrough”. Claim 8 recites t he term “ about 5.6 mm ” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this term will be interpreted as 5.6 mm, when rounded to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Claim 8 recites t he term “ about 0.45 mm ” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this term will be interpreted as 0.45 mm, when rounded to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the base is substantially round shaped”. The term “ substantially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite , as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “the base is round shaped”. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the largest contacting area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a largest contacting area”. By their dependency, the following claims are also rejected: 11/10, 12/10, 13/10, 14/10, 15/14/10, 18/15/14/10, 16/14/10, 17/14/10 , 18/15/10 . Claim 10 recites the limitation “the base and the cap are essentially made up of electrically conductive materials”. The term “ essentially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite , as it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Correction is required. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “the base and the cap are made up of electrically conductive materials”. By their dependency, the following claims are also rejected: 11/10, 12/10, 13/10, 14/10, 15/14/10, 18/15/14/10, 16/14/10, 17/14/10 , 18/15/10 . Claim 11 recites the limitation “the center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a center”. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a center”. By their dependency, the following are also rejected: 15/14, 18/15/14. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a center ”. By their dependency, the following are also rejected: 20/19, 21/19, 22/21/19. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the largest contacting area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be read as “a largest contacting area”. By their dependency, the following are also rejected: 20/19, 21/19, 22/21/19. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention . Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hettler et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0067265), hereinafter Hettler. Regarding Claim 1, Hettler teaches a base (Fig . 1, “2”; Abstract, “header”) for electronic component packaging (Abstract , “optoelectronic component” ), comprising: an upper surface (Fig. 1, “21”) ; a lower surface (Fig. 3, “14”) defining a lamination plane (Annotated Fig. 3) ; and at least one through hole (Fig. 1, “9”; paragraph [0146], paragraph [0200]); wherein the base is essentially made up of electrically conductive materials (paragraph [0145], metal) ; the lamination plane (Annotated Fig. 3) is a virtual plane having the largest contacting area to the lower surface (Annotated Fig. 3 , see entire area of the lower surface “14” on the lamination plane ) ; and each of the at least one through hole is sealed with a conducting feedthrough (Fig. 5, “19a”, “19b”; paragraph [0148], see explanation below) surrounded by a ring of insulating material (Fig. 5 , “1 8 a” and “1 8 b”) , and both the conducting feedthrough and the ring of insulating material are not protruding from the lamination plane (Fig. 8, “18” and “19” do not p rotrude past “14”). It can be necessarily understood to someone of ordinary skill that: the feedthroughs as taught by Hettler are electrically conductive, in the sense that the y are depicted to be of the same material as “7” in Fig. 8, and “7” is soldered to conductive traces and therefore are made of a conductive material which can wet the solder. Annotated Fig. 3 (Hettler) Regarding Claim 2, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 1. Hettler further teaches : the base is essentially made up of metal (paragraph [0145]). Regarding Claim 4, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 1. Hettler further teaches : the lower surface is substantially flat ( Fig. 3, see “14” is flat ). Regarding Claim 6, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 1. As taught above in Claim 1 by Hettler , the base comprises two through holes ( Fig. 1, “9”; paragraph [0146], paragraph [0200] ) and two conducting feedthroughs (Fig. 5, “19a”, “19b”; paragraph [0148], see explanation below) . It can be necessarily understood to someone of ordinary skill that: the feedthroughs as taught by Hettler are electrically conductive, in the sense that they are depicted to be of the same material as “7” in Fig. 8, and “7” is soldered to conductive traces and therefore are made of a conductive material which can wet the solder. Regarding Claim 9, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 1. Hettler further teaches : an elevation ( Fig. 1, “4” ) on the upper surface ( Fig. 1, “21” ) . Regarding Claim 10, Hettler teaches an electronic component package, comprising: a base (Fig 1, “2”; Abstract, “header”; also in Fig. 17) having an upper surface (Fig. 1, “21”; also in Fig. 17); and a lower surface (Fig. 3, “14”; also in Fig. 17), and the lower surface defines a lamination plane (Annotated Fig. 3); a cap (Fig. 17; “3”); and at least one electronic component fixed on the upper surface ( paragraph [0010]; paragraph [0250] ) ; wherein the lamination plane is a virtual plane having the largest contacting area to the lower surface (Annotated Fig. 3, see entire area of the lower surface “14” on the lamination plane); the base has one or more through holes hole ( Fig. 1, “9”; paragraph [0146], paragraph [0200]) sealed with conducting feedthroughs (Fig. 5, “19a”, “19b”; paragraph [0148], see explanation below ) surrounded by insulating materials (Fig. 5, “18a” and “18b”), the conducting feedthroughs and the insulating materials are not protruding from the lamination (Fig. 8, “18” and “19” do not protrude past “14”) ; the at least one electronic component is electrically connected (paragraph [0304]) to the conducting feedthroughs and/or the base; the base and the cap are essentially made up of electrically conductive materials (paragraph [0145], “metal”; paragraph [0011], see explanation below) ; and the base and the cap are sealed by welding (paragraph [0250]). It can be necessarily understood to someone having ordinary skill that : the cap is made up of electrically conductive materials, in the sense that it is soldered onto the base and therefore is made of a conductive material which can wet the solder; the feedthroughs as taught by Hettler are electrically conductive, in the sense that they are depicted to be of the same material as “7” in Fig. 8, and “7” is soldered to conductive traces and therefore are made of a conductive material which can wet the solder. Regarding Claim 12, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 10. Hettler further teaches: the lower surface is flat (Fig. 3, see “14” is flat). Regarding Claim 14, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 10. Hettler further teaches: the cap has an opening at the center (Fig. 17, see circular opening on top of “3”), the opening is sealed by a transparent material (Fig. 17, “27”; paragraph [0186], “window”; paragraph [0188] , “lens”); and the at least one electronic component is an optoelectronic component (paragraph [0 149 ]) which can emit or receive light (paragraph [0 149 ], “laser diode”, see explanation below). It can be necessarily understood by someone having ordinary skill in the art that a laser diode can emit light, in the sense that the laser diode emits light by the light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, i.e., emits coherent light by stimulated emission. Regarding Claim 19, Hettler teaches a method for electronic component package, comprising: providing an electrically conductive base (Fig 1, “2”; Abstract, “header”; paragraph [0145], made of metal) having an upper surface (Fig. 1, “21”) and a lower surface (Fig. 3, “14”), wherein: the lower surface defines a lamination plane (Annotated Fig. 3), which is a virtual plane having the largest contacting area to the lower surface (Annotated Fig. 3, see entire area of the lower surface “14” on the lamination plane), the base has one or more through holes (Fig. 1, “9”; paragraph [0146], paragraph [0200]) sealed with conducting feedthroughs (Fig. 5, “19a”, “19b”; paragraph [0148], see explanation below) surrounded by insulating materials (Fig. 5 , “1 8 a” and “1 8 b”), and the conducting feedthroughs and the insulating materials are not protruding from the lamination plane (Fig. 8, “18” and “19” do not protrude past “14”); providing an electrically conductive cap (Fig. 17; “3”; paragraph [0 011 ] see explanation below); fixing at least one electronic component on the upper surface (paragraph [0250]); and sealing the base and the cap by welding (paragraph [0250]). It can be necessarily understood to someone of ordinary skill that: the cap is electrically conductive, in the sense that it is soldered onto the base and therefore is made of a conductive material which can wet the solder; the feedthroughs as taught by Hettler are electrically conductive, in the sense that they are depicted to be of the same material as “7” in Fig. 8, and “7” is soldered to conductive traces and therefore are made of a conductive material which can wet the solder. Regarding Claim 21, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 19. Hettler further teaches: the cap has an opening at the center (Fig. 17, see circular opening on top of “3”), the opening is sealed by a transparent material (Fig. 17, “27”; paragraph [0 011 ], “window”; paragraph [ 0249] , “lens”); and the at least one electronic component is an optoelectronic component (paragraph [01 49 ]) which can emit or receive light (paragraph [01 49] , “laser diode”, see explanation below). It can be necessarily understood by someone having ordinary skill in the art that a laser diode can emit light, in the sense that the laser diode emits light by the light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, i.e., emits coherent light by stimulated emission. 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. Claims 13, 16, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettler, in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0280460), hereinafter Ito. Regarding Claim 13, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 10. Hettler does not teach: the welding method is resistance welding or laser welding. Ito teaches: the welding method is resistance welding or laser welding ( Fig. 1, “110” directly on “101”, paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: utilize resistance welding or laser welding as the welding method in the device of Hettler, for the benefit of joining the cap to the base without filler metal. Regarding Claim 16, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 14. Hettler does not teach: one or more optical components fixed on the upper surface to alter the path of light. I to teaches: one or more optical components (Fig. 3, “123”; paragraph [0054]) on the upper surface (Fig. 3, “101”) to alter the path of light (paragraph [0054], “bending an optical path”).Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: add one or more optical components in the device of Hettler as taught by Ito, for the benefit of controlling the optical path. Regarding Claim 17, Hettler and Ito teach the device of Claim 16 . As taught above in Claim 16 by Ito, the one or more optical components is a reflective prism. Regarding Claim 20, Hettler teaches the method of Claim 19. Hettler does not teach: the welding method is resistance welding or laser welding. Ito teaches: the welding method is resistance welding or laser welding (paragraph [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: utilize resistance welding or laser welding as the welding method in the method of Hettler, for the benefit of joining the cap to the base without filler metal. Regarding Claim 22, Hettler teaches the method of Claim 21. Hettler does not teach: before sealing the base and the cap, further comprising fixing one or more optical component on the upper surface to alter the path of light. Ito teaches: before (paragraph [0054]) sealing the base and the cap (paragraph [0056]), further comprising fixing one or more optical components (Fig. 3, “123”; paragraph [0054]) on the upper surface (Fig. 3, “101”) to alter the path of light (paragraph [0054], “bending an optical path”).Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: add one or more optical components in the method of Hettler as taught by Ito, for the benefit of controlling the optical path. Claims 3 , 11 , 1 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettler, in view of Kimura (U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0133821). Regarding Claim 3, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 1. Hettler does not teach: the upper surface is recessed inward at the center region. Kimura teaches: the upper surface (Fig. 11A, “12”) is recessed inward at the center region (Fig. 11A, “13”; paragraph [0048]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: have the upper surface recessed inward at the center region, for the benefit of increasing the surface area of the upper surface of the base for heat sinking. Regarding Claim 11, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 10. Hettler does not teach: the upper surface is recessed inward at the center, and the at least one electronic component is fixed on the recessed part of the upper surface. Kimura teaches: the upper surface (Fig. 11A, “12” ) is recessed inward at the center, (Fig. 11A, “13”; paragraph [0048]) and the at least one electronic component (Fig. 11A, “62”) is fixed on the recessed part of the upper surface (Fig. 11A, see “62” on “13”; paragraph [0123]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: have the upper surface is recessed inward at the center, for the benefit of increasing the surface area of the upper surface of the base for heat sinking; have the at least one electronic component is fixed on the recessed part of the upper surface, for the benefit of heat sinking the electronic component in the recess. Regarding Claim 15, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 14. Hettler does not teach: the electronic component is mounted on the base, and is connected to the conducting feedthroughs and/or the base through one or more wires. Kimura teaches: the electronic component is mounted on the base (Fig. 11A, “62”; paragraph [0123]), and is connected to the conducting feedthroughs and/or the base through one or more wires (Fig. 11A, “W3”; paragraph [0123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: have the electronic component mounted on the base, and connected to the conducting feedthroughs and/or the base through one or more wires, for the benefit of electrically connecting the electrical component to the external environment of the device. Regarding Claim 18, Hettler and Kimura teach the device of Claim 15. Kimura further teaches gold wire (paragraph [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: utilize a gold wire in the device of Hettler, Ito, and Kimura, for the benefit of preventing surface oxidation on the wire. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettler in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,509,117), hereinafter Schwarz. Regarding Claim 5, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 1. Hettler does not teach: the lowest end of the conducting feedthrough is on the lamination plane. Schwarz teaches : the lowest end of the conducting feedthrough (Fig. 3, “210, 260” ; Col. 6 lines 59-67, Col. 7 lines 1-5 ) is on the lamination plane (Annotated Fig. 3) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: have the lowest end of the conducting feedthrough on the lamination plane as taught by Schwarz in the device of Hettler, for the benefit of surface mounting via reflow soldering (Col. 7, lines 11-13). Annotated Fig. 3 (Schwarz) Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettler in view of Noguchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0310397), hereinafter Noguchi. Regarding Claim 7, Hettler teaches the device of Claim 6. Hettler does not teach: the cross-sectional area of each of the feedthroughs is less than 1% of the area of the base. Noguchi teaches the cross-sectional area of each of the feedthroughs (Fig. 5, “111A”; paragraph [0045], diameter is 450 = 0.45 mm , see explanation below ) is less than 1% of the area of the base ( paragraph [0045], diameter of base is 5.6 mm, see explanation below ). Noguchi discloses the diameter of the base (Fig. 5, “113”) is 5.6 mm (paragraph [0045]), and the diameter of each feedthrough (Fig. 5, “111A”) is 0.45 mm (paragraph [0045], 450 μm = 0.45 mm). From the diameters of each feedthrough and the base we can obtain the cross sectional area of each feedthrough, i.e., the area of the horizontal circular cross-section of each feedthrough, as the area of the circ le Area feedthrough =π r feedthrough 2 =π ( d feedthrough 2 ) 2 , where the radius of each feedthrough is half its respective diameter. Using d feedthrough =0.45 mm , then Area feedthrough = 0.16 mm 2 when rounded to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter. Similarly, for the area of the base, where the radius of the base is half its diameter, and given tis circular shape the area is Area base =π r base 2 =π ( d base 2 ) 2 where the radius of the base is half its diameter. Using d base =5.6 mm , then Area base = 24.63 mm 2 when rounded to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter. From this the ratio of the cross-sectional area of each feedthrough to the area of the base is Area feedthrough Area base , which can be described as a percent by Area feedthrough Area base ∙100 . Having obtained Area feedthrough = 0.16 mm 2 , Area base = 24.63 mm 2 , Area feedthrough Area base ∙100 ≈0.65%, i.e., the cross-sectional area of each feedthrough is less than 1% of the base. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: utilize a feedthrough with a cross-sectional area less than 1% of the area of the base as taught by Noguchi in the device of Hettler, for the benefit of minimizing vacuum leakage within the device. Regarding Claim 8, Hettler and Noguchi teach the device of Claim 7. Hettler further teaches the base is substantially round shaped (Fig. 1, see shape of “2”). Hettler does not further teach the diameter of the base is about 5.6 mm, and the diameter of the feedthrough is about 0.45 mm. Noguchi further teaches the diameter of the base (Fig. 5, “113”) is about 5.6 mm (paragraph [0045]) , and the diameter of the feedthrough (Fig. 5, “111A”) is about 0.45 mm (paragraph [0045], 450 μm = 0.45 mm) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to: have the diameter of the base be about 5.6 mm , as recognized as conventional in the art by Ito ( paragraph [0064] ); to have the diameter of the feedthrough be about 0.45 mm, to minimize the circumference of the feedthrough as a vacuum leaking boundary. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saeki et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0255406) Wai Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0069543) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASMIN KAUR MUNDI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9755 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET . 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 MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1835 . 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. /J.K.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828