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 Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “the wedges” should be “the rotating wedges” for consistency purposes. The term “them” is confusing, and are suggested to amend to “the two rotating wedges”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 9 , 12, 17 and 19 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 9 is indefinite because “the direction” “the motion” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 12 is indefinite because “the sleeve” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 11 recites “each strap…is enclosed in a different sleeve…” it is therefore unclear which sleeve is the claimed ‘the sleeve.” Additionally, the term “the apertures” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17 is indefinite because the term “the biasing strap” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 19 is indefinite because the term “the orientations” lacks antecedent basis. Similar issue with “the rotational symmetry.” 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. The claims are rejected as follows: Claim s 1 –2, 4–6, 13–14 and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lackner et al., US 2021 / 0387133 A1 (“ Lackner ”) . The applied reference has common assignee and joint inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Regard claim 1: Lackner discloses the claimed limitation of that a passive carbon dioxide collection device ( Lackner ’s device 100, which passively collect carbon dioxide, Lackner Fig. 1A, [0027]), comprising: a release chamber ( Lackner ’s release chamber 104, Lackner Fig. 1A, [0028]) ; a capture structure ( Lackner ’s capture structure 106, Lackner Fig. 1A, [0028]) coupled to the release chamber (104 of Lackner ) and comprising at least three straps ( Lackner discloses as a minimum of three ladders, Lackner [0039]) and a plurality of disks ( Lackner ’s tiles 108, Lackner Fig. 3A, [0039]) coupled to and spaced along the at least three straps ( Lackner [0039]) , each disk (108 of Lackner ) comprising a sorbent material (sorbent material 110, Lackner Fig. 3A, [0033]) , the capture structure (106 of Lackner ) being movable between a collection configuration (as shown in Fig. 3A, Lackner Fig. 3A, [0038]) and a release configuration (as shown in Fig. 3B, Lackner Fig. 3B, [0038]) , and each strap comprising a primary width ( Lackner discloses its strap has a ladder structure, Lackner [0039] , a ladder structure by its dictionary definition, is a structure consisting of a series of bars or steps between two upright lengths of wood, metal or rope, the claimed “ primary width ” extends in the bar or step direction) and a secondary width (the direction extends perpendicular to the bar or step direction) , a movable portion ( Lackner ’s lid 114 and the associated lifting mechanism, Lackner Fig. 1B, [0044]) configured to move the capture structure (106 of Lackner ) between the collection configuration (Fig. 3A of Lackner ) and the release configuration (Fig. 3B of Lackner ) ; wherein the collection configuration (Fig. 3A of Lackner ) comprises the capture structure extending upward from the release chamber (as shown in Fig. 3A of Lackner ) , the plurality of disks (108 of Lackner ) suspended from the movable portion by the at least three straps ( Lackner ’s ladder structure, Lackner [0039]) such that, for each pair of neighboring disks (as shown in Lackner ’s Fig. 2B) of the plurality of disks having a lower disk ( Lackner ’s lower frame 208, Lackner Fig. 2B, [0059]) and an upper disk ( Lackner ’s upper frame 206, Lackner Fig. 2B, [0059]) and for each strap ( Lackner ’s at least three ladder structure, Lackner [0039]) of the at least three straps the lower disk (208 of Lackner , Lackner Fig. 2B) is separated from the upper disk (206 of Lackner , Fig. 2B) by a connecting segment of the strap (the portion of long strains or chains between the rung supporting tile 206 and the rung supporting tile 208, Lackner Fig. 2B, [0039]) , exposing at least a portion of the capture structure to an airflow and allowing the sorbent material of the plurality of disks to capture carbon dioxide (as shown in Lackner ’s collection configuration of Fig. 3A, at least a portion 302 of the capture structure is exposed to airflow 304, Lackner Fig. 3A, [0065]) ; wherein the release configuration (as shown in Fig. 3B, Lackner , Fig. 3B, [0067]) comprises the plurality of disks ( Lackner ’s tiles 108) being stacked entirely within the release chamber (104 of Lackner , Lackner Fig. 3B, [0066 ]) for regeneration resulting in the release of the carbon dioxide sorbed into the sorbent material ( Lackner Fig. 3B, [0067]) , each strap of the at least three straps being collapsed ( Lackner discloses its supports 112 is collapsible, Lackner Fig. 3B, [0067]) , each connecting segment having assumed a release topology, the release topology sized and positioned to accommodate the stacking of the plurality of disks entirely within the release chamber (the configuration of straps when tiles 108 being enclosed in the release chamber 104, Lackner Fig. 3B, [0067]) ; and wherein, for each pair of neighboring disks of the plurality of disks and for each strap of the at least three straps, the connecting segment is biased to move toward the release topology when the lower disk is not entirely supported by the at least three straps ( Lackner discloses its tiles 108 are supported by the ladder structure, and when the support structures are raised, the support structure allows the tiles 108 to hang down freely under gravity, and Lackner discloses a lifting mechanism to allow the structure to be fully lifted, Lackner [0039], [0044], it is thus understood that when the support structure is lifted, the lower disk would be entirely supported by the at least three straps, in other words, when the lower disc is not entirely supported by the at least three straps, the lifting mechanism is not in function, which means the discs are in the released configuration as shown in Fig. 3B, therefore reading on the limitation that “ the connecting segment is biased to move toward the release topology when the lower disk is not entirely supported by the at least three straps ”). Lackner does not explicitly disclose that the secondary width is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the primary width . Instead, Lackner discloses that the ladders may be many centimeters wide, while the thickness of the lines comprising the sides of the ladders can be made thinner, thus easier to collapse the ladders. Lackner [ 0039]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Lackner ’s rope to be as thin as possible to allowable easier collapsing. For example, if the rope is in the range of “mm” thickness, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the primary width. Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed first and second width relationship is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A). Regarding claim 2: Lackner discloses that the passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1 wherein, while in the release configuration (Fig. 3B of Lackner ), the plurality of disks (108 of Lackner , Fig. 3A, [0039]) are stacked in the release chamber (104 of Lackner , Fig. 3B, [0043]). Lackner does not disclose that a gap between neighboring disks is no greater than three times the secondary width, the gap being the largest vertical distance between neighboring disks. However, Lackner discloses smaller raisers are used to maintain a small gap between the tiles 108 when they are at rest within the chamber 104, Lackner Fig. 3B, [0037]. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands the gaps has to be at least one time of the second dimension to allow space to accommodate the connecting segment of the strap. A person of ordinary skill in the art also understands that the gap cannot be too big because there is limited space in the chamber 104. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the gap between neighboring discs to be no greater than three times the secondary width to allow enough space for accommodating the connecting segment of the strap during collapsed configuration while allowing the entire tiles 108 to be accommodated inside the chamber 104. Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed gap range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A). Regarding Claim 4: Lackner discloses that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claims 1, wherein the plurality of disks (108 of Lackner ) is releasably coupled to the at least three straps ( Lackner discloses the tiles 108 could be hooked onto a single rung of the ladders, and therefore, the tiles 108 are releasably coupled to the ladders by hook/unhook, Lackner [0039]) . Regarding claim 5: Lackner discloses that the passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 4, wherein, for each disk of the plurality of disks, each strap of the at least three straps is releasably coupled to an edge of the disk by a belt skirting the disk ( Lackner discloses a minimum of three ladders are arranged evenly around the edges of tiles 108, and the ladders are formed by long strings or chains, with solid rods for rungs, and each tile are hooked onto a single rung, it is therefore understood that the straps are releasably coupled to an edge of the tile 108 by hook/unhook, and the strings or chains between rung would be the claimed “belt skirting the disc”, Lackner [0039]) , pressing the strap into the edge and releasably coupling the strap to the disk ( Lackner ’s ladder would be necessary pressing into the strap for Lackner ’s tile to be hooked to the rung and for the rung to establish a reliable support for the tile 108, Lackner [0039]). Regarding claim 6: Lackner does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of using a minimum of three ladders as the collapsible supports 112, that the passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 4, wherein, for each disk of the plurality of disks and for each strap of the at least three straps, the disk comprises an aperture for the strap, the strap passing through the disk, the disk releasably coupled to the strap proximate the aperture. However, Lackner discloses in an alternative embodiment, where the straps could be one or more collapsible supports ( 112 ) passing through an aperture ( Lackner ’s central aperture 202). Lackner Fig. 2B, [0059]. Lackner discloses the strap (112) passing through the disc (108), and that the disc (108) releasably coupled to the strap proximate the aperture ( Lackner ’s disc 108 is releasably coupled to the strap 112 proximate the aperture by installing/removing the discs 108 via aperture remove/insert strap 112 into or out of aperture 202, Lackner Fig. 2B, [0055]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use this alternative embodiment because both design s are disclosed by Lackner . Lackner discloses that the structure of the tiles and mechanisms to hang the tiles 108 may be adjusted based on local geography and weather conditions. Lackner [0057]. A person ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this alternative embodiment in areas with high wind conditions for a robust and best insured support. Regarding claim 13: Lackner disclose s that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1, wherein, for each pair of neighboring disks of the plurality of disks and for each strap of the at least three straps, the release topology of the connecting segment of the strap comprises the connecting segment folding to form a fold edge that is sandwiched between the upper disk and lower disk (Lackner discloses in an alternative embodiment, where the tiles 108 is held up by rigid rods that fold in zig-zag pattern tangential to the tiles 108, creating “Dog-bone” shapes that protrudes from the bottom tile 108 into an opening space in the tiles 108 above, Lackner [0040]. The zig-zag fold would the claimed “fold edge that is sandwiched between the upper disk and the lower disc”.) Regarding claim 14: Lackner discloses that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 13, wherein, for each pair of neighboring disks of the plurality of disks, at least one of the upper disk and the lower disk comprises a groove sized and located to at least partially receive the connecting segment when in the release topology ( Lackner discloses an alternative embodiment of the tile 108, where the surface comprise a plurality of grooves, Lackner Fig. 2C, [0060], Lackner’s zig-zag pattern protrudes into an opening space from bottom tile 108 into the tiles 108, and space inside a groove is considered such open space, and therefore, read on the “groove” that at least partially receive the connecting segment when in the release topology ). Regarding claim 19: Lackner discloses that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1, wherein the at least three straps pass through the plurality of disks (Lackner’s disk 108 rest on each rung of the minimum of three ladders, Lackner [0039], therefore read on the three straps pass through the plurality of disks—pass through the outer peripheral of the disc 108) , the primary width of each strap having an orientation with respect to a radius of the disk bisecting the primary width (the at least three straps is mapped to “a minimum of three ladders arranged evenly around the edges of tiles 108, where the tile is hooked onto a rung, Lackner [0039], Lackner therefore read on the limitation of “the primary width having an orientation with respect to a radius of the disc bisecting the primary width” ) , and wherein the orientations of the at least three straps destroy the rotational symmetry of the capture structure, hindering spinning caused by the airflow ( the orientation of the three straps of Lackner destroy s the rotational symmetry and hindering spinning causing by the airflow because each tile 108 is support evenly on the perimeter by three rung and the rotations is hindered by the string/chain portion of each ladder) . Regarding claim 20: Lackner discloses that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1, wherein the at least three straps pass through the plurality of disks in a tangential fashion (Lackner ’s long string/chains of the minimum of three such ladders pasting through the plurality of discs 108 in a tangential fashion, Lackner [0039] ) , the primary width of each strap having an orientation with respect to a radius of the disk bisecting the primary width (the at least three straps is mapped to “a minimum of three ladders arranged evenly around the edges of tiles 108, where the tile is hooked onto a rung, Lackner [0039], Lackner therefore read on the limitation of “ the primary width of each strap having an orientation with respect to a radius of the disk bisecting the primary width ” ) , and wherein the orientation of the primary width is closer to perpendicular to the radius than parallel with the radius (the orientation of the primary width of Lackner is “perpendicular to the radius than parallel with the radius because the radius pass es through the rung, which is the primary width direction) . Claim s 1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al., US 2011 / 0189075 A1 (“Wright”). Regarding claim 10: Lackner does not explicitly disclose that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 6, wherein, for each disk in the plurality of disks and for each strap of the at least three straps, the disk is coupled to the strap through a stopper releasably coupled to the strap beneath the disk, the stopper being too large to enter the aperture the strap is passing through. However, Lackner discloses its collapsible supports 112 could be thin ropes, lines or chains that running through the tiles 108, Lackner Fig. 1B, [0039]. Lackner also discloses that each tile 108 may be connected to the one above, and thereby carries the weight of all the tiles 108 below it , Lackner Fig. 1B, [0039]. Lackner discloses that the tiles 108 are spaced along the collapsible supports 112. Lackner ’s Fig. 1B shows a plurality of tiles 108 connected via collapsible supports 112 and a plurality of shorter lines in between neighboring tiles 108. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands that a structure is necessary to keep the tiles 108 at the predetermined space, i.e., without such structure, the tiles 108 would slip down the collapsible supports 112 due to gravity. For example, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a rope knob after the collapsible support 112 (which could be ropes) after passing through a tile 108 to keep the tile at the predetermined space. Such rope know would read on the claimed “ a stopper releasably coupled (by tie/untie) to the strap 112 beneath the disk 108. And the stopper (rope knob) would necessarily to be too large to enter the aperture the strap is passing through for it to perform the “stop” function properly. Additionally, in the analogous art of carbon dioxide adsorption, Wright discloses a plurality collector plates 36 held together by lines or wires 38, Wright Fig. 4F, [0053]. Wright discloses its wires 38 pass through the plates 36 and beneath each plate 36, there is a stop attached to the bottom surface of the plate 36. Wright Fig. 4F, [0053]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Lackner to include a similar structure as disclosed by Wright because such stopper is used in the art to keep collector plates at a certain distance, and such stopper keeps collectors at parallel to airflow so as to minimize turbulence. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al., CN 208562965 U (“Wang”) . Regarding claim 11: Lackner does not disclose that the passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1, wherein each strap of the at least three straps is enclosed in a different sleeve, each sleeve composed of an elastic material and is biased to shrink from an elongated state corresponding to the capture structure being in the collection configuration to a relaxed state corresponding to the capture structure being in the release configuration. However, Lackner discloses the tiles 108 could be supported by one or more collapsible supports 112, which include but are not limited to think ropes, lines, or chains, Lackner Fig. 1 B, [0039]. In the analogous art of ropes, Wang discloses a rope (Wang Fig. 1, p. 3) enclosed in a different sleeve (Wang’s rope sleeve 1, Wang Fig. 1, p. 3) , each sleeve composed of an elastic material (Wang’s sleeve would compose of an elastic material because all materially would inherently have certain degree of elasticity because all materials are formed of atomic bonds that stretch and recoil) and is biased to shrink from an elongated state corresponding to the capture structure being in the collection configuration to a relaxed state corresponding to the capture structure being in the release configuration (Wang’s sleeve would biased to shrink from an elongated state to keep the atomic bond intact and in a relax state when there is no stretching force, Wang’s rope would be in a relaxed state). Wang discloses its rope has greatly improved wearing resistance and corrosion resistant. Wang p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Wang’s rope in Lackner for the benefits of improved wearing resistance and corrosion resistant . Claim 1 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackner in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 1 above, and further in view of Wright . Regarding claim 12: Lackner as modified does not disclose that the passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 11, wherein, for each strap of the at least three straps, the relaxed state of the sleeve is contained within a corridor bounded by the apertures the strap passes through such that when the capture structure is in the release configuration, the release topology comprises the strap being contained within the corridor by the sleeve. However, in the analogous art of CO2 extractor, Wright discloses a plurality of sheets 13 held together by through rod and comprising a plurality of spacer, Wright annotated Fig. 2, [0048]. Lackner discloses using smaller raiser when the capture structure 106 is collapsed inside the release chamber 104 to maintain a small gap between the tiles 108 when they are rest in the chamber 104, Lackner [0037]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Wright’s spacer as the raiser discussed in Lackner because Wright’s configuration is readily known in the CO2 extraction art and Wright’s spacer protects Lackner’s tiles 108 from bumping into each other and causing damage while they are stacked together. With such modification, Lackner as modified would have a corridor (interior of Wright’s spacer structure) bounded by the apertures the strap passes through (as shown in Wright Fig. 2) such that when the capture structure is in the release configuration, the release topology comprise the strap (similar to Wright’s through rod) contained within the corridor by the sleeve (sleeve is part of the strap and sleeve together with the strap is contained in the claimed corridor as discussed earlier). Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lackner in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keefer , US 4 , 801 , 308 A (“ Keefer ”) . Regarding claim 15: Lackner does not explicitly disclose that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of clai m 1, wherein, for each pair of neighboring disks of the plurality of disks and for each strap of the at least three straps, the release topology of the connecting segment of the strap comprises the connecting segment folding to form a fold edge that is in a void between the plurality of disks and the release chamber. However, in the analogous art of gas adsorption, Keefer discloses a plurality of adsorption tiles (Keefer’s adsorbent segments 80, Keffer Fig. 4A, col. 12, ll. 21–23), hold together by a collapsible support (Keefer’s convoluted diaphragm 82, Keefer Fig. 4A, col. 12, ll. 26–35). Keefer also discloses a connecting segment comprises the connecting segment folding to form a fold edge (81/82 as shown in Keefer’s Fig. 4B) that is in a void between the plurality of disc (80 of Keefer) and a chamber (Keefer’s housing 20, Keefer Fig. 4 B, surrounding the disc 80, Keefer Fig. 4B, col. 12, ll. 21–45) . It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Lackner ’s strap to form fold edge that is in a void between the plurality of disks and the release chamber the same way as disclosed in Keefer because such design is known in the gas adsorption art, additionally, such design avoids a situation where the fold edge interferes with the adsorption tiles. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 7 –9 , 16–18 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 7: Lackner does not disclose that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 6, wherein, for each disk of the plurality of disks and for each strap of the at least three straps, the strap is releasably coupled to the disk through a self-tightening clamp at least partially inside the aperture of the disk the strap passes through. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lackner because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as obvious. Claims 8–9 would be allowable because they depend on claim 7. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Lackner because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as obvious. Regarding claim 16: Lackner does not disclose t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1, wherein, for each strap of the at least three straps, the strap comprises a uniform strap, and each connecting segment of the strap comprises the uniform strap coupled to at least one biasing strap. It would have been obvious to modify Lackner for such limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as obvious. Claims 17–18 would be allowable because they depend on claim 16. Regarding claim 21: Lackner discloses that t he passive carbon dioxide collection device of claim 1, wherein the at least three straps pass through the plurality of disks in a radial fashion (Lackner discloses its tiles 108 are rest on rungs, rungs of Lackner pas through the plurality of discs in a radial fashion, Lackner [0039]) , the primary width of each strap having an orientation with respect to a radius of the disk bisecting the primary width (this limitation is addressed in claim 20) . However, Lackner does not disclose that the orientation of the primary width is closer to parallel with the radius than perpendicular to the radius . Lackner discloses the opposite as mapped in claim 20. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to redefine the orientation because none of the prior art shows or renders such modification as obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT QIANPING HE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8385 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30-5:00 M-F . 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 Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7872 . 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /Qianping He/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776