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. Formal Matters Claims 1-4 were originally presented on 05/03/2023. The preliminary amendments to the claims also filed on 05/03/2023 have been received and entered. Claims 1-4 are pending and under examination. Priority This application is a U.S. National Phase filing under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application PCT/JP2021/015982, filed April 20, 2021, and published as WO 2022/070483 A 1 on April 7, 2022. PCT/JP2021/015982 claims priority from Japanese application number 2020-165745, filed September 30, 2020 . Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements filed 03/24/2023, 10/28/2024, and 07/03/2025 have been received and entered into the present application. As reflected by the attached, completed copies of form PTO-1449, the Examiner has considered the cited references to the extent that they comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97, §1.98 and MPEP §609. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “A” and “B” in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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. Claim Objections Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: recitation of “[Chem. 1]”, “[Chem. 2 ]” , “[Chem. 3 ]” , “[Chem. 4 ]” , “[Chem. 5 ]” , “[Chem. 6 ]” , “[Chem. 7 ]” , and “[Chem. 8 ]” should be removed from the claims because brackets are used to indicate cancelled subject matter. Additionally, these citations are unnecessary because the claims reference to compounds represented by formula (1), formula (2), and formula (3), NOT “[Chem. 1]”, “[Chem. 2]”, “[Chem. 3]”, “[Chem. 4]”, “[Chem. 5]”, “[Chem. 6]”, “[Chem. 7]”, and “[Chem. 8]” . Appropriate correction is required. Duplicate Claims Warning Applicant is advised that should claims 1-2 be found allowable, claims 3-4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, claims 3-4 differ from claims 1-2 only in the recited intended use of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, i.e., “for treating breast cancer” vs. “for treating prostate cancer”. The pharmaceutical compositions and what they comprise, however, are identical. The recited intended uses are not afforded patentable weight because they do not place any structural limitations on the claimed pharmaceutical compositions. 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. Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural product without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) pharmaceutical compositions comprising, inter alia, the following compound: . See Claims 2 and 4. As evidenced by HE ET AL . ( Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 580 , 8 pages), this compound is a naturally produced compound found in deep-sea-derived fungus Penicillium solitum MCCC 3A00215 (Abstract; paragraph bridging p.1-2; Figure 1) . PRINCIPLES OF LAW Section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that “[w] hoever 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.” The Supreme Court has interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include the following implicit exceptions: “[l] aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int' l , 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That being said, the Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves one of those judicial exceptions. Id . at 217. In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc ., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), the Supreme Court, “set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp ., 573 U.S. at 217. That framework is referred to as the Mayo test. The first part of the Mayo test is determining whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (i.e., a judicial exception). Id. The second part of the Mayo test is determining whether the claim recites additional elements sufficient to ensure that significantly more than the judicial exception is being claimed. Id . at 217–18. The Mayo test has been incorporated into the Ninth Edition, Revision 07.2022 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), and particularly Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). In Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, the Examiner considers whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54). Steps 2A and 2B are the Supreme Court ' s Mayo test. Step 2A, includes two prongs. In Step 2A, Prong 1, the Examiner must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, such as a natural phenomenon. In Step 2A, Prong 2, the Examiner must determine whether the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception (see 84 Fed. Reg. at 54). If a claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, the additional elements of the claim are evaluated both individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept ( Id . at 56). When a natural phenomenon is claimed as a physical product, as in this case, the courts often refer to the exception as a “product of nature.” MPEP § 2106.04(b)(II). Product of nature exceptions include both naturally occurring products and non-naturally occurring products that lack markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart ( Id .). The “markedly different characteristics” analysis is used to evaluate a nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A, Prong 1 ( I d .; see also I d . § 2106.04(c)). The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. MPEP § 2106.04(c)(II). Where the claim is to a nature-based product produced by combining multiple components (e.g., a claim to “a probiotic composition comprising a mixture of Lactobacillus and milk”), the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature-based combination, rather than its component parts. For instance, for the probiotic composition example, the mixture of Lactobacillus and milk should be analyzed for markedly different characteristics, rather than the Lactobacillus separately and the milk separately. (Id. § 2106.04(c)(I)(A).) The first step in the analysis is selecting the appropriate counterpart to the nature-based product (id. § 2106.04(c)(II)(A)). When the nature-based product is derived from a naturally occurring thing, the naturally occurring thing is the counterpart ( I d .). The second step in the analysis is identifying the appropriate characteristics to compare ( I d . § 2106.04(c)(II)(B)). Appropriate characteristics can be expressed as, for example, biological functions or activities of the nature-based product and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis (id.). Finally, the third step in the analysis is comparing the characteristics of the claimed nature-based product to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, in order to determine whether the characteristics of the claimed nature-based product are markedly different (id. § 2106.04(c)(II)(C)). If there is no change in any characteristic, the claimed product lacks markedly different characteristics, and is a product of nature exception. If there is a change in at least one characteristic as compared to the counterpart, and the change came about or was produced by applicant' s efforts or influences, then the change will generally be considered a markedly different characteristic such that the claimed product is not a product of nature exception. ( Id .) ANALYSIS Applicant's claims circumscribe “[a] pharmaceutical composition” comprising chemical compounds . (Step 1) This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Here, the claims recite “[a] pharmaceutical composition” that is comprised of a naturally occurring compound and therefore recites a composition of matter, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, analysis proceeds to the next step. (Step 2A, Prong 1) This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception, such as a natural phenomenon. I. Product of Nature Analysis: The composition s of Applicant' s claim s 1 -4 comprise the naturally occurring compound . Claiming a natural product that is merely separated from elements found in its natural environment, where the structure of the natural product is not otherwise altered, does not support a conclusion that the isolated product is patent eligible. See Ass' n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc ., 569 U.S. 576, 593–95 (2013). Here, there is no evidence of record to support a finding that the claimed pharmaceutical compositions comprising the claimed natural product alter the structure of the compound found in its natural environment or otherwise changes the structure, function, or other properties of the compound in any marked way. Thus, there can be no dispute that the pharmaceutical composition s of Applicant' s claim s 1 -4 include a product derived from nature, specifically, the compound having the structure For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner finds that the composition s of Applicant's claim s 1 -4 comprise a nature-based composition. II. Markedly Different Characteristics Analysis: The first step in the markedly different characteristics analysis is selecting the appropriate counterpart to the nature-based composition. On this record, the nature-based product occurs naturally in at least deep-sea-derived fungus Penicillium solitum MCCC 3A00215 as evidenced by HE ET AL. T hus , the naturally occurring deep-sea-derived fungus Penicillium solitum MCCC 3A00215 is the appropriate counterpart to the claimed nature-based composition. The second step in the markedly different characteristics analysis is identifying the appropriate characteristics to compare. On this record, the appropriate characteristics to compare are the biological functions or activities of the nature-based composition. Finally, the third step in the markedly different characteristics analysis is comparing the characteristics of the claimed nature-based composition to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, in order to determine whether the characteristics of the claimed nature-based product are markedly different. If there is no change in any characteristic, the claimed composition lacks markedly different characteristics, and is a product of nature exception. As Applicant's explain, the compositions comprising the nature-based product are intended to be used to treat prostate or breast cancer . Notably, Applicant's claim s 1 -4 does not recite or require any particular amounts of the recited natural compound. There is no indication on this record that isolating the specified compound from its natural source (e.g., deep-sea-derived fungus Penicillium solitum MCCC 3A00215 ) changes the structure, function, or other properties of the compound in any marked way. The compound appears to maintain its naturally occurring structure and properties and is merely present in “[a] pharmaceutical composition” . Thus, the claimed compositions as a whole does not display markedly different characteristics in comparison with the naturally occurring counterpart. Additionally, Applicant's claim s 1 -4 do not recite specific amounts for any of compounds in their composition s , and, instead, encompass nominal amounts of any one or more of the compounds. Indeed, Applicant' s claimed composition encompasses one-zillionth of a milligram of any particular claimed compound, which a person of ordinary skill in this art would consider insignificant. For the foregoing reasons, the claimed composition s lack markedly different characteristics, and, thus, are product of nature exception s . Therefore, analysis proceeds to the second prong of Step 2A. ( Step 2A, Prong 2 ) In Step 2A, Prong 2, the Examiner must determine whether the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the product of nature exception. More specifically, the MPEP requires the Examiner to look at the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements integrate the recited product of nature exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by identifying whether there are additional elements individually, and in combination, which go beyond the judicial exception. See id. at 54–55. It is noted, however, that “the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). In contrast, “[i]f the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the ‘treatment or prophylaxis ' consideration .” Id. On this record, Applicant's claim s 1 -4 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the product of nature exception. ( Step 2B ) Having determined that Applicant' s claims: (1) recite a judicial exception and (2) do not integrate that exception into a practical application, the Guidance requires that the Examiner evaluate whether Applicant' s claims: (a) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (b) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. The Examiner finds that those of ordinary skill in this art would readily understand that putting a naturally occurring compound in a “pharmaceutical composition”, e.g., dissolving it in water, simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception . Indeed, extraction /isolation of the claimed natural compound from its natural source was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See HE ET AL. Thus, the Examiner finds that Applicant's claim s 1 -4 do not add any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception because Applicant's claim s 1-4 literally embodies the product of nature exception per se . Claims 1-4 are not eligible . 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 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. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHANG ET AL . ( Mol . Cancer Ther . 2006;5(12) , p.3285-3293) . Regarding claims 1-4 , ZHANG ET AL . teach methyl-3-indolylacetate significantly suppress es the invasion of cancer cells stimulated by the 12-O-tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate (TPA) (Abstract) . M ethyl-3-indolylacetate has the following structure and anticipates the claimed genus of formula (3) recited in claims 1 and 3 when R4 is “an alkyl ester alkylene group”, R5, R6, and R7 are each “a hydrogen atom” and the specific compound recited in claims 2 and 4 : (Figure 1A). A stock solution of the compound (200 mmol/L) was prepared in DMSO (p.3286, right column, “Cell Culture and Treatments”). Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by VINE ET AL . ( Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry , 15 (2007) , p 931–938 ) . Regarding claims 1-4 , VINE ET AL . teach isatin derivatives falling within the scope of the claimed formula (2). Specifically, they teach Compounds 2a and 2t , which are compounds of the claimed formula (2) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when two R4 together are an oxygen atom, two R5 together are an oxygen atom, R6 is a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-CH3), and R7 is a hydrogen atom (Table 1). Compound 2t also anticipates claims 2 and 4 as it is expressly recited in these claims. They teach contacting U937 cells with compounds 2a and 2t (Table 1; p.933, left column ), thus anticipating the claimed “pharmaceutical composition”. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SUN ET AL . ( Chinese Chemical Letters 22 (2011) , p. 667–670 ) . Regarding claims 1-4 , SUN ET AL . teach a 4-arylcoumarin falling within the scope of the claimed formula ( 1 ). Specifically, they teach Compound 1g , which is a compound of the claimed formula ( 1 ) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 and R3 are each an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-OCH3) ( Scheme 1 ). Compound 1g also anticipates claims 2 and 4 as it is expressly recited in these claims. They teach contacting bacteria cells in vitro with compound 1g and determining the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) (Table 1; p. 669 , 3 rd full paragraph ), thus anticipating the claimed “pharmaceutical composition”. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SUN ET AL . ( Chemistry of Natural Compounds, Vol. 48, No. 1, March, 2012 , p.16-22 ) . Regarding claims 1-4 , SUN ET AL . teach a 4-arylcoumarin falling within the scope of the claimed formula (1). Specifically, they teach Compound 15 , which is a compound of the claimed formula (1) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when R1 and R2 are each a hydroxyl group and R3 is an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-OCH3) (Scheme 2 ). Compound 15 also anticipates claims 2 and 4 as it is expressly recited in these claims. They teach contacting bacteria cells in vitro with compound 15 and determining the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and/or minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) (Table 1; p. 18 , 1 st full paragraph) and that the compound was dissolved in DMSO at a concentration of 10 mg/mL (p. 21, 6 th full paragraph) , thus anticipating the claimed “pharmaceutical composition”. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHANG ET AL . ( Biochimie 107 (2014) , p. 203 - 210 ) (Cited by Applicants in IDS filed 03/24/2023) . Regarding claims 1-4 , ZHANG ET AL . teach a 4-arylcoumarin s falling within the scope of the claimed formula (1). Specifically, they teach Compound 1g , which is a compound of the claimed formula (1) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 and R3 are each an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-OCH3) ; Compound 2h , which is a compound of the claimed formula (1) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when R1 and R2 are each a hydroxyl group and R3 is an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-OCH3) ; and Compound 2j , which is a compound of the claimed formula (1) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 and R3 are each an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-OCH3) ( Table 1 ). Compound s 1g and 2h also anticipate claims 2 and 4 as they are expressly recited in these claims. They teach injecting 1 m L compound solutions dissolved in DMSO and diluted by 20% DMSO into the hemocoel of Galleria mellonella fifth instar larvae ( p.205, 1 st full paragraph ; Table 5; Fig. 4) and diluting the compounds with absolute ethanol and adding into insect diet at a maximum concentration of 100 m g/g ( p.205, 2 nd full paragraph; Table 5; Fig. 4 ), thus anticipating the claimed “pharmaceutical composition”. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by GIORNO ET AL . ( Life Sciences 151 (2016) , p. 189–198 ) . Regarding claims 1-4 , GIORNO ET AL . teach isatin and N-methyl- isatin , which are compounds of the claimed formula (2) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when two R4 together are an oxygen atom, two R5 together are an oxygen atom, R6 is a hydrogen atom ( isatin ) or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-CH3) (N-methyl- isatin ) , and R7 is a hydrogen atom (Abstract) . N-methyl- isatin also anticipate s claims 2 and 4 as it is expressly recited in these claims. They teach isatin and N-methyl- isatin (MI) were separately dissolved in DMSO to prepare 100 mg/ml stock solutions and solutions were prepared for administration from each stock solution using PBS as vehicle (p.190, paragraph bridging left and right columns). Doses of 0.1–10 mg/kg (final volume of 0.1 ml per animal) were administered by gavage ( Id .) , thus anticipating the claimed “pharmaceutical composition”. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by HU ET AL . ( Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, 2019, 34:1, p. 15-30 ) . Regarding claims 1-4 , HU ET AL . teach numerous 4 -arylcoumarin derivatives falling within the scope of the claimed formula (1). Specifically, they teach the following species, which are compounds of the claimed formula ( 1 ) as recited in claims 1 and 3 when R1 is a hydrogen atom , R2 is a hydroxyl group , and R3 is an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-CH3) or when R1 and R2 are each a hydroxyl group and R3 is a hydroxyl group: (Table 4). The compound when R1 is a hydrogen atom, R2 is a hydroxyl group, and R3 is an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms (-CH3) also anticipates claims 2 and 4 as it is expressly recited in these claims. They teach testing these compounds for a-glucosidase inhibitory activity and AGEs formation inhibitory activity in vitro ( Table 4; paragraph bridging p.17-18; p.18, paragraph bridging left and right columns; paragraph bridging p.18-19 ). They teach the test compounds were dissolved in DMSO (p.27, right column, 1 st full paragraph) , thus anticipating the claimed “pharmaceutical composition”. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by FIRESTONE ET AL . ( US 2003/0087946 A1; Published May 8, 2003 ) (Cited by Applicants in IDS filed 03/24/2023) . FIRESTONE ET AL . teach derivatives of indole-3-carbinol having the general formula: and pharmaceuticals comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient and the compounds, which inhibits tumor cell growth (Abstract). Regarding claims 1-4, they teach a species of the disclosed general formula wherein R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each hydrogen and R3 is COR, wherein R is hydrogen, which anticipates the claimed genus of formula (3) recited in claims 1 and 3 when R4 is “an aldehyde group” and R5, R6, and R7 are each hydrogen, and is expressly recited in claims 2 and 4 (Table IX, Compound HBC014-1.0). They teach a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of Table IX, wherein said compound inhibits tumor growth, and a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (Claims 1 and 6). Conclusion Claims 1-4 are rejected. No claims are allowed. Applicant is requested to specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure in response to this Office action, including the claims (M.P.E.P. §§ 714.02 and 2163.06). In doing so, applicant is requested to refer to pages and line (or paragraph) numbers (if available) in the as-filed specification, not the published application . Due to the procedure outlined in M.P.E.P. § 2163.06 for interpreting claims, other art may be applicable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) once the aforementioned issue(s) is/are addressed. Applicant is reminded that MPEP §2001.06(b) clearly states that “[t]he individuals covered by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question." See Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co ., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972). MPEP §2001.06(b) clearly indicates that “if a particular inventor has different applications pending in which similar subject matter but patentably indistinct claims are present that fact must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications.” See Dayco Prod. Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc ., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9038 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Lundgren can be reached on 571-272-5541 . 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. /James D. Anderson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 400 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314-5774 Tel. No.: (571) 272-9038