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. Response to Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment filed august 1, 2023 is acknowledged. Action on the merits of claims 1-10 follows. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed August 1, 2023; October 22, 2024; December 10, 2024; May 28, 2025; and September 16, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii). Drawings No drawings appear to have been filed in the instant application. Specification The specification received August 1, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes. Claim Objections Claims 5-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: c laims 5-8 and 10 set forth a plurality of elements which would be in better form as set forth in MPEP § 608.01(m) which states, in part, “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation As to claim s 1- 9, w hile intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus , article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function . In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim . Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). I n claim s 1- 9, the electrode “for a lithium-ion secondary battery” can be interpreted as intended use. As to claim 10, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). “The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113. Any process steps of claim 7 to which claim 10 is dependent upon are held to constitute claims of a product-by-process nature. 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract mathematical evaluation without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) A method of evaluating a negative electrode material for a lithium- ion secondary battery comprising, evaluating a negative electrode material for a lithium- ion secondary battery using a regression formula obtained by multiple regression analysis with a springback rate of graphite particles included in the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery and a compressive load (kN/cm²) of the graphite particles as explanatory variables and a liquid absorption time of a negative electrode including the negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery as an objective variable. Statutory category: This claim is nominally directed to a method (process) which is a recognized statutory class of invention. However, the invention appears to be directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concept) and t his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim appears drawn to an abstract mathematical concept . Judicial Exception – abstract idea (mathematical concept/mental process): C laim 5 appear s to be framed as mainly using a regression formula to “evaluate” a material and may be an abstract evaluation as claimed rather than a technical process. The only positive step recited appears to be “evaluating … using a regression formula” (performing a mathematical relationship on measured or provided data) . This is directed to using a regression formula to evaluate a material which can be performed as a mental process, with pencil and paper or on a generic computer. For, example other than reciting “by using ,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind . Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea ( mathematical relationship - a regression formula). No integration into a practical application: The additional elements in the claim beyond the method of evaluating using a regression formula do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . The surrounding language provides a field of use which is insufficient to amount to a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. Abstract ideas include, inter alia, mathematical relationships. The claim does not recite any concrete physical testing steps and d oes not require any specific use of an evaluation result in making or operating the battery. There is no explicit limitation to physically prepare or test the negative electrode material, no explicit limitation(s) to measure the variables recited therein; no manufacture or control of the battery or electrode from the evaluation result(s). Rather, claim 5 appears to only recite a step of evaluating using a regression formula , appearing to merely use an abstract idea as the focus of the invention. No t “significantly more”: Considering the elements of the claim individually and as an ordered combination, the claim does not recite an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The only substantive limitation is use of a regression formula to evaluate a negative electrode material. There are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (mathematical concept or relationship) . T he additional element of using a regression formula amounts to no more than mere instructions to use the exception . Again, the claim appears to merely use an abstract idea as the focus of the invention. Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC § 101. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract mathematical evaluation without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) Claim 6 recites a method of producing a negative electrode material for a lithium- ion secondary battery comprising producing a negative electrode material for a lithium- ion secondary battery based on an evaluation result of a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery using the evaluation method of a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 5 . Statutory category: Claim 6 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category under 35 USC § 101. Judicial Exception – claim 6 relies on the same abstract idea (mathematical concept/mental process) of claim 5 : Although directed to a method claim (method of producing a negative electrode active material) , claim 6 also does not comply with 35 USC § 101 as it appears to rely on the same abstract idea of claim 5 and further only recite s “ producing … based on an evaluation result … according to claim 5 ” . T he judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim appears drawn to the same abstract mathematical evaluation of claim 5 . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 6 appear s to be framed as mainly “ producing … based on an evaluation result … according to claim 5 ” and may still be an abstract evaluation as claimed rather than a patent-eligible technical process. There is no explicit limitation to physically prepare or test the negative elect r ode material, no explicit limitation(s) to measure the variables recited therein; no manufacture or control of the battery or electrode from the evaluation result(s). Rather, claim 6 appears to only recite “ producing … based on an evaluation result … according to claim 5 ”, the invention of claim 6 . Using the output of an abstract mathematical evaluation (of claim 5) to make a decision about a product in the method of claim 6, at such a generic level as currently expressed, is treated as a generic “post-solution activity”. There is no meaningful integration of the abstract idea of claim 5 into the method of claim 6 with claim 6 reciting “ producing … based on an evaluation result … according to claim 5 ”. The claim does not specify any concrete manufacturing steps or any specific structural limitations of the electrode that flow from the evaluation. The language “based on” in claim 6 can be satisfied by simply choosing between known materials using the evaluation result, which is a generic decision making step and an example of an extra-solution activity. The claim additionally does not recite additional elements that amount to more than the abstract evaluation . Merely reciting production of a product “based on” an abstract evaluation is not enough to supply an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC § 101. 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. Claims 1-10 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 includes the use of an of “…” which appears to be an ellipsis (“…”) at line 3 . n ellipsis in a claim is generally considered indefinite as an ellipsis is understood to be a punctuation mark that indicates deliberate omission of words /text . While the claim may not intend to use the punctuation in this manner, the , the claims are nonetheless indefinite given the general plain meaning of the use of this punctuation, noted to be exemplary of an ellipsis. Claims 2-10 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons. Applicant is advised to delete th is punctuation from claim 1; Claim 5 recites a method of “using a regression formula” but fails to set forth any steps of how the formula is used. A claim reciting a method of using without reciting any steps of use is held to be indefinite. A method claim must recite step(s)/act(s ) that is/are effectively performed. The claim limitation of using a regression formula does not specify any acts of evaluating (inputs, equation, outputs and conditions). Merely stating a method of using something without claiming what is actually done in that use fails to “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Therefore claim 5 fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5, and does not remedy this issue. Therefore claim 6, is rejected for at least this same reason; Claim 6 itself recites a method of “using the evaluation method … according to claim 5” but fails to set forth any steps of how the evaluation method is used. A claim reciting a method of using without reciting any steps of use is held to be indefinite. The evaluation result is not-self defining. The claim does not state what is measured, how it is processed or what form the result takes for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand, from the claim, what the term “an evaluation result” is. Likewise, using the evaluation method based on a regression formula does not specify any acts of evaluating (inputs, equation, outputs and conditions) so the method of producing of claim 6 further incorporates an undefined method of evaluating from claim 5. A method claim must recite step(s)/act(s) that is/are effectively performed. Merely stating a method of using something without claiming what is actually done in that use fails to “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Therefore claims 6 fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. 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 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Spahr et al. (WO2010/089326A) . As to claim 1, Spahr discloses a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising graphite particles satisfying the following Formula (1): [Springback rate x 7.6] + [Compressive load (kN/cm ² )] ≥4.2 Notably, Spahr teaches on page 17 under “Spring-back”: The spring-back is a source of information regarding the resilience of compacted graphite powders. A defined amount of powder is poured into a die. After inserting the punch and sealing the die, air is evacuated from the die. Compression force of 1.5 metric tons/ cm 2 is applied and the powder height is recorded. This height is recorded again after pressure has been released. Spring-back is the height difference in percent relative to the height under pressure. In the various Examples, Spahr teaches of spring-back ranging from 7.2% (Example 4) to 15.7% (Example 3). Therefore, spring back can be 0.072 (Example 4), 0.157 (Example 3) after compression of 1.5 metric tons/cm ² . 1 ton/cm2=9.8 kN/cm ² . Therefore, 1.5 ton/cm 2 = 14.7 kN/cm ² . Supplying the exemplary spring-back percentages of Spahr , such as 7.2% (0.072) and compressive force of Spahr , 14.7 kN/cm ² to the formula of claim 1 follows: [Springback rate x 7.6] + [Compressive load (kN/cm²)] ≥4.2 [ 0.072 x 7.6] + [ 14.7 kN/cm²] = 15.42 which is greater than the lower limit of 4.2 of claim 1. Therefore, the negative electrode graphite particulate material of Spahr satisfies Formula (1) of claim 1 and anticipates claim 1. As to claim 2, the compressive load of Spahr is 1.5 metric tons/cm ² which converts to 14.7 kN/cm ² . As to claim 9 , Spahr discloses the material as a negative electrode material layer for a battery. Claims 1, 2 , 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Spahr et al. ( U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0077035 ) . As to claim 1, Spahr discloses a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising graphite particles satisfying the following Formula (1): [Springback rate x 7.6] + [Compressive load (kN/cm²)] ≥4.2 Notably, Spahr of determining elastic recovery by pressing the particles under a pressure of 1 .5 ton/cm ² ( para. [0090] ). In the various Examples, Spahr teaches of spring-back ranging from 5.8 % (Example 5) to 9.6 % (Example 3 ). Therefore, spring back can be 0.0 5 8 (Example 5), 0. 096 (Example 3 ) after compression of 1 .5 tons/cm ² . 1 ton/cm2=9.8 kN/cm ² . Therefore, 1 .5 ton/cm 2 = 1 4. 7 kN/cm ² . Supplying the exemplary spring-back percentages of Spahr, such as 5 .8% (0.0 5 8) and compressive force of Spahr, 14.7 kN/cm ² to the formula of claim 1 follows: [Springback rate x 7.6] + [Compressive load (kN/cm²)] ≥4.2 [ 0.0 5 8 x 7.6] + [ 14.7 kN/cm²] = 1 5.1 4 which is greater than the lower limit of 4.2 of claim 1. Therefore, the negative electrode graphite particulate material of Spahr satisfies Formula (1) of claim 1 and anticipates claim 1. As to claim 2, the compressive load of Spahr is 1 .5 metric tons/cm ² which converts to 14.7 kN/cm ² . As to claim 4, the graphite particles are platelet shape (Figs. 4-5, para. [0060]). As to claim 9, Spahr discloses the material as a negative electrode material layer for a battery ( paras. [0027] ; [0041]; [0066] ). Claims 1 -3 and 9 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gulas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0200950) . As to claim 1, Gulas discloses a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising graphite particles satisfying the following Formula (1): [Springback rate x 7.6] + [Compressive load (kN/cm²)] ≥4.2 Notably, Gulas of determining elastic recovery by pressing the particles under a pressure of 0.477 ton/cm ² (para. [0046]). Gulas further teaches that the spring back ration is about 15-75%, preferably about 20-60% or 25-50% (para. [0046]). Therefore, spring back can be 0.15 to 0.75, 0.20 to 0.60 or 0.25 to 0.50 after compression of 0.477 tons/cm ² . 1 ton/cm2=9.8 kN/cm ² . Therefore, 0.477 ton/cm2=4.68 kN/cm ² . Supplying the exemplary spring-back percentages of Gulas, such as 25-50% (0.25-0.50) and compressive force of Gulas, 4.68 kN/cm ² to the formula of claim 1 follows: [Springback rate x 7.6] + [Compressive load (kN/cm²)] ≥4.2 [ 0.25 x 7.6] + [ 4.68 kN/cm²] = 6.58 which is greater than the lower limit of 4.2 of claim 1. [ 0.5 x 7.6] + [ 4.68 kN/cm²] = 8.48 which is greater than the lower limit of 4.2 of claim 1. Therefore, the negative electrode graphite particulate material of Gulas satisfies Formula (1) of claim 1 and anticipates claim 1. As to claim 2, the compressive load of Gulas is 0.477 metric tons/cm ² which converts to 4.67 kN/cm ² . As to claim 3, Gulas further teaches that the spring back ration is about 15-75%, preferably about 20-60% or 25-50% (para. [0046]). Therefore, spring back can be 0.15 to 0.75, 0.20 to 0.60 or 0.25 to 0.50, wherein not only does the range significantly overlap but the narrow range of 25-50% (0.25-0.50) anticipates the rate of claim 3. As to claim 9, Gulas discloses the material as a negative electrode material layer for a battery (paras. [0019]). As to claim 10, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). “The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113. The process of graphitizing coke is a product-by-process feature. The product of Gulas is graphite which satisfies the relationship of claims 1, 7 and 10. As to claim 10, Gulas teaches of a lithium ion battery comprising an electrode according to the product-by-process of claim 7, an opposing electrode and an electrolyte (paras. [0131]-[0139]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0200950) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of I i jima et al. (JP 07282799A) or Sotowa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0236767). Claim 10 is alternatively rejected under 103 in light of consideration of the method limitations of intervening claim 7. As to claim 7 , Gulas teaches of a method for producing a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising Producing the material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1. As to claim 10, Gulas teaches of a lithium ion battery comprising an electrode according to the product-by-process of claim 7, an opposing electrode and an electrolyte (paras. [0131]-[0139]). As to claims 7- 8 and 10 , Gulas does not teach of the method of graphitizing coke (claim 7), wherein the coke has a thermal expansion coefficient after firing at 1400 o C of 2.30x10 -6 / o C or more (claim 8), or the product produced by the method of claim 7 (claim 10). Iijima is drawn to the same field of endeavor, particular to lithium secondary batteries with graphite electrodes fabricated from graphitization of coke having high electrochemical performance characteristics. Iijima teaches that graphitized coke having a thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) after firing a t high temperature of 3.5 0x10 -6 / o C or more . Iijima teaches that graphite having a CTE on the order of 3.50x10 -6 / o C or more provides for good initial discharge efficiency, increased capacity and improved cycling efficiency. Sotowa is drawn to the same field of endeavor, particular to lithium secondary batteries with graphite electrodes fabricated from graphitization of coke having high electrochemical performance characteristics. Sotowa teaches that graphitized coke having a thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) after firing at high temperature (1100-1900 o C) of 4.80x10 -6 / o C or more. Iijima teaches that graphite having a CTE on the order of 4.80x10 -6 / o C or more provides for increased capacity and improved cycling efficiency. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Gulas by graphitizing coke to produce graphite with a CTE on the order of 3.50x10 -6 / o C or more as taught by Iijima and Sotowa since it would have provided for good initial discharge efficiency, increased capacity and improved cycling efficiency. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 7,115,221 discloses producing graphite powder. U.S. Patent No. 10,388,984 teaches of methods of evaluating and selecting graphite particles as suitable negative electrode materials. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1283 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm . 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 Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1453 . 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. /GREGG CANTELMO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725