DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “ 151a ” in Fig. 1 . 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “ 100 ” , process chamber . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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 Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ an upper surface the flat substrate ” in line 12 should read “ an upper surface of the flat substrate. ” Appropriate correction is required. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: A pplicant ’ s specification uses the term “ VCSEL ” without including the expanded form of this abbreviation. T he examiner suggests amending the first occurrence of the term “ VCSEL ” to include “ (Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser) ” to clearly indicate the meaning of this term. Appropriate correction is required. 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 3 recites the limitation " the beam irradiating plate " in lines 8-9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. F or the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “ the beam irradiating plate ” as “ the beam transmitting plate. ” F or the same reason, its dependent claim 4 is rejected as well. Claim 11 recites the limitation " the beam irradiating plate " in lines 8-9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. F or the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “ the beam irradiating plate ” as “ the beam transmitting plate. ” 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claim 1-2, 5-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 5738440) hereinafter O’Neill, in view of Moench et al. (US 20160381732) hereinafter Moench . Regarding claim 1 , O’Neill teaches, in Fig. 1, a substrate heat-treating apparatus (14, “heating apparatus”) comprising: a process chamber (16, “chamber”) in which a flat substrate (12, “semiconductor wafer”) to be heat treated is placed (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1), the process chamber (16) comprising a beam transmitting plate (20, “bottom wall”) placed below (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1) the flat substrate (12) and an infrared transmitting plate (18, “top wall”) placed above (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1) the flat substrate (12); a beam irradiating module (26, “heating lamps”) for irradiating a light (“ray”; “rays of the lamp radiation,” col. 6, ln. 30) to a lower surface (Fig. 1) of the flat substrate (12) through the beam transmitting plate (20) (“The walls of the chamber 16 are fabricated of a material, such as quartz, which is transparent to the radiation of the lamps 26,” col. 6, lns . 22-24); and an emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1: “emissivity measuring module”; the examiner interprets an emissivity measuring module annotated in Fig. 1 comprising a port 40, an optical path 44 and a detector 58 as the “emissivity measuring module”) configured to measure the laser beam (“ray”) (“a detector 58 of the radiation propagating along the path 44,” col. 6, lns . 52-53) reflected from the lower surface (“an optical path 44 of radiation propagating through the port 40 in a direction normal to be bottom surface of the wafer 12,” col. 6, lns . 42-44) or an upper surface the flat substrate (12), thereby measuring the emissivity (“a filter 60 located on the optical path 44… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns . 53-57) of the flat substrate (12). Fig. 1 of O’Neill , annotated O’Neill does not explicitly teach a beam irradiating module for irradiating a VCSEL beam having a single wavelength. However, Moench teaches, in Fig. 1, a beam irradiating module (110, “sub module” with a multitude of semiconductor light sources 115) for irradiating a VCSEL beam (paragraph 75: “… light source 115 like VCSEL… emit laser light”) having a single wavelength (paragraph 31: “VCSEL may emit laser light at an essentially single wavelength”) . O’Neill and Moench are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of heating system for an OLED substrate or a semiconductor wafer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the beam irradiating module of O’Neill with the VCSEL as taught by Moench for the purpose of “emit[ting] less power… [to] be advantageous if a big number of VCSEL is arranged … [to] illuminate an area element of the heating surface.” Moench , paragraph 13. Fig. 1 of Moench Regarding claim 2 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14, O’Neill) of claim 1, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1, O’Neill) is placed below (the arrangement is shown in Fig. 1, O’Neill) the beam irradiating module (110, Moench ) to measure the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench ) reflected from the lower surface (“an optical path 44 of radiation propagating through the port 40 in a direction normal to be bottom surface of the wafer 12,” O’Neill, col. 6, lns . 42-44) of the flat substrate (12, O’Neill), thereby measuring the emissivity (“a filter 60 located on the optical path 44… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” O’Neill, col. 6, lns . 53-57) of the flat substrate (12, O’Neill). Regarding claim 5 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, The substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 2, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises a power-meter (58, “detector”) placed below (shown in Fig. 1) the emissivity measuring hole (40) and configured to receive (“a detector 58 of the radiation propagating along the path 44,” col. 6, lns . 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench ), thereby measuring the emissivity (“a filter 60 positioned directly in front of the detector… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns . 53-57). Regarding claim 6 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 2, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises an optical cable (44, “optical path”) placed below the emissivity measuring hole (40) to receive (“a detector 58 of the radiation propagating along the path 44,” col. 6, lns . 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench ), and a power-meter (58) connected to (Fig. 1) the optical cable (44) to measure the emissivity (“a filter 60 positioned directly in front of the detector… has a passband centered at the frequency at which the emissivity … [is] to be measured,” col. 6, lns . 53-57). Regarding claim 7 , which is a dependent claim of claim 2, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of Moench , the beam irradiating module (110) comprises a laser light-emitting device (115, “semiconductor light source”), and the laser light-emitting device (115) comprises a surface light-emitting laser device or an edge light-emitting laser device (paragraph 39: “semiconductor light sources are Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers”). Regarding claim 8 , which is a dependent claim of claim 2, O’Neill and Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of Moench , the beam irradiating module (110) comprises a laser light-emitting device (115), and the laser light-emitting device (115) comprises a VCSEL device (paragraph 75: “semiconductor light source 155 like VCSEL”). Regarding claim 12 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 1, wherein the beam irradiating module (26) comprises an emissivity measuring hole (40) penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof (the configuration shown in Fig. 1), and the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) is placed below (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1) the emissivity measuring hole (40). Regarding claim 13 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 12, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises a power- meter (58) placed below (shown in Fig. 1) the emissivity measuring hole (40) and configured to receive (col. 6, lns . 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench ), thereby measuring the emissivity (col. 6, lns . 53-57). Regarding claim 14 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 12, wherein the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) comprises an optical cable (44) placed below the emissivity measuring hole (40) to receive (col. 6, lns . 52-53) the laser beam (“VCSEL beam,” Moench ), and a power-meter (58) connected to (Fig. 1) the optical cable (44) to measure the emissivity (col. 6, lns . 53-57). Regarding claim 15 , which is a dependent claim of claim 1, O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of Moench , the beam irradiating module (110) comprises a laser light-emitting device (115), and the laser light-emitting device (115) comprises a surface light-emitting laser device or an edge light-emitting laser device (paragraph 39). Regarding claim 16 , which is a dependent claim of claim 1, O’Neill and Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of Moench , the beam irradiating module (110) comprises a laser light-emitting device (115), and the laser light-emitting device (115) comprises a VCSEL device (paragraph 75). Claims 3-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 5738440) hereinafter O’Neill, in view of Moench et al. (US 20160381732) hereinafter Moench , and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20150155190) hereinafter Miller. Regarding claim 3 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 2, wherein the process chamber (16) comprises; a side wall (22, “sidewalls”) in which the flat substrate (12) is seated (Fig. 1), the infrared transmitting plate (18), an upper plate (28, “top mirror”), the beam irradiating plate (20), and the beam irradiating module (26). O’Neill and Moench does not explicitly teach an outer housing in which the infrared transmitting plate and an upper plate are placed above the flat substrate in the side wall, and an inner housing placed below the flat substrate inside the outer housing and having an upper portion on which the beam irradiating plate is placed, wherein the beam irradiating module is placed below the e beam transmitting plate inside the inner housing. However, Miller teaches, in Fig. 2, an outer housing (annotated Fig. 2: “outer housing”; the examiner interprets the combination of an upper wall 212 and a chamber body 202 as an “outer housing”) in which the infrared transmitting plate (252, “cover”) and an upper plate (212, “upper wall”) are placed above (the arrangement shown in Fig. 2) the flat substrate (122) in the side wall (202) (shown in Fig. 2), and an inner housing (annotated Fig. 2: “inner housing”) placed below (Fig. 2) the flat substrate (122) inside the outer housing (the arrangement shown in annotated Fig. 2) and having an upper portion on which the beam irradiating plate (206, “radiant source window”; paragraph 29: “The radiant source window 206 may be formed from quartz or other similar material that is optically transparent”) is placed (the arrangement is shown in annotated Fig. 2), wherein the beam irradiating module (208, “radiant energy source”) is placed below the beam transmitting plate (206) inside the inner housing (“inner housing”) (shown in annotated Fig. 2). O’Neill, Moench and Miller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of apparatus for thermally processing a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have outer and inner housings as taught by Miller in the substrate heat-treating apparatus taught by O’Neill and Moench , in order to “minimize… the amount of deposits on reflector and chamber walls… and… improve the thermal processing environment to improve the RTP process results,” as well as to achieve “improved temperature uniformity during processing, reduced chamber down time and improved cost-of-ownership of the processes performed in the thermal processing chamber.” Miller, paragraph 13 & 15. Fig. 2 of Miller, annotated Regarding claim 4 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 3, wherein the beam irradiating module (26) comprises an emissivity measuring hole (40, “port”) penetrating from an upper surface to a lower surface thereof (the configuration shown in Fig. 1), and the emissivity measuring module (annotated Fig. 1) is placed below the emissivity measuring hole (40) (the arrangement shown in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11 , O’Neill in view of Moench and Miller teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 1, wherein the process chamber (16) comprises; a side wall (22, “sidewalls”) in which the flat substrate (12) is seated (Fig. 1), the infrared transmitting plate (18), an upper plate (28, “top mirror”), the beam irradiating plate (20), and the beam irradiating module (26). O’Neill and Moench does not explicitly teach an outer housing in which the infrared transmitting plate and an upper plate are placed above the flat substrate in the side wall, and an inner housing placed below the flat substrate inside the outer housing and having an upper portion on which the beam irradiating plate is placed, wherein the beam irradiating module is placed below the e beam transmitting plate inside the inner housing. However, Miller teaches, in Fig. 2, an outer housing (annotated Fig. 2: “outer housing”; the examiner interprets the combination of an upper wall 212 and a chamber body 202 as an “outer housing”) in which the infrared transmitting plate (252, “cover”) and an upper plate (212, “upper wall”) are placed above (the arrangement shown in Fig. 2) the flat substrate (122) in the side wall (202) (shown in Fig. 2), and an inner housing (annotated Fig. 2: “inner housing”) placed below (Fig. 2) the flat substrate (122) inside the outer housing (the arrangement shown in annotated Fig. 2) and having an upper portion on which the beam irradiating plate (206, “radiant source window”; paragraph 29: “The radiant source window 206 may be formed from quartz or other similar material that is optically transparent”) is placed (the arrangement is shown in annotated Fig. 2), wherein the beam irradiating module (208, “radiant energy source”) is placed below the beam transmitting plate (206) inside the inner housing (“inner housing”) (shown in annotated Fig. 2). O’Neill, Moench and Miller are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of apparatus for thermally processing a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have outer and inner housings as taught by Miller in the substrate heat-treating apparatus taught by O’Neill and Moench , in order to “minimize… the amount of deposits on reflector and chamber walls… and… improve the thermal processing environment to improve the RTP process results,” as well as to achieve “improved temperature uniformity during processing, reduced chamber down time and improved cost-of-ownership of the processes performed in the thermal processing chamber.” Miller, paragraph 13 & 15. Claims 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. (US 5738440) hereinafter O’Neill, in view of Moench et al. (US 20160381732) hereinafter Moench , and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 20080170842) hereinafter Hunter. Regarding claim 9 , O’Neill in view of Moench teaches, in Fig. 1 of O’Neill, the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 2, wherein the process chamber (16) further comprises a substrate support (24, “supports”) configured to support an outer side of the flat substrate (12) (“The wafer 12… is held… by supports 24 inwardly from the sidewalls 22,” col. 6, lns . 15-18). O’Neill and Moench does not explicitly teach the substrate heat-treating apparatus further comprises a substrate rotating module configured to support and rotate the substrate support. However, Hunter teaches, in Fig. 2, a substrate heat-treating apparatus (10, “rapid thermal processing system”) further comprises a substrate rotating module (annotated Fig. 2) configured to support and rotate the substrate support (annotated Fig. 2: the examiner interprets an edge ring 20 and a tubular riser 39 as the upper support and the connection support respectively, and thus the combination of the edge ring and the tubular riser as “the substrate support”). O’Neill, Moench and Hunter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of apparatus for thermally processing a semiconductor substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the substrate rotating module as taught by Hunter in the substrate heat-treating apparatus taught by O’Neill and Moench , for the purpose of rotating “the substrate 12 and … heat[ ing ] the substrate 12 uniformly to a target temperature.” Hunter, paragraph 33. Fig. 2 of Hunter, annotated Regarding claim 10 , which is a dependent claim of claim 2, O’Neill in combination with Moench and Hunter teaches, in Fig. 2 of Hunter, the substrate rotating module (annotated Fig. 2) comprises; an inner rotating means (21, “magnetic rotor”) having a ring shape (paragraph 22: “A magnetic rotor 21 is disposed in the circular channel 22,” based on which the examiner interprets the magnetic rotor is “ring shape”) in which N poles and S poles are alternately formed in a circumferential direction (it is known that an electromagnetic rotor for a substrate heating apparatus has both N and S poles alternately formed in a circumferential direction, https://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20electromagnetic%20rotor%20for%20a%20substrate%20heating%20apparatus%20have%20n%20poles%20and%20s%20poles%20alternately%20formed%20in%20circumferential%20direction%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=does%20electromagnetic%20rotor%20for%20a%20substrate%20heating%20apparatus%20have%20n%20poles%20and%20s%20poles%20alternately%20formed%20in%20circumferential%20direc tion%3F&sc=0-134&sk=&cvid=33C8252F926D471687251154FD1CA414 , accessed 3/8/2026) and being coupled to a lower portion of the substrate support within the chamber lower space (the arrangement shown in Fig. 2), and an outer rotating means (23, “magnetic stator”) placed outside the outer housing to face (shown in annotated Fig. 2) the inner rotating means (21) and configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate (paragraph 22: “[a] magnetic stator… is magnetically coupled through the chamber body 35 to induce rotation of the magnetic rotor 21 and hence of the edge ring 20 and the substrate 12 supported thereon”) the inner rotating means (21). Regarding claim 17 , O’Neill in combination with Moench and Hunter teaches the substrate heat-treating apparatus (14) of claim 1, wherein the process chamber (16) further comprises a substrate support (24, “supports”) configured to support an outer side of the flat substrate (12) (“The wafer 12… is held… by supports 24 inwardly from the sidewalls 22,” col. 6, lns . 15-18). O’Neill and Moench does not explicitly teach the substrate heat-treating apparatus further comprises a substrate rotating module configured to support and rotate the substrate support. However, Hunter teaches, in Fig. 2, a substrate heat-treating apparatus (10, “rapid thermal processing system”) further comprises a substrate rotating module (annotated Fig. 2) configured to support and rotate the substrate support (annotated Fig. 2: the examiner interprets an edge ring 20 and a tubular riser 39 as the upper support and the connection support respectively, and thus the combination of the edge ring and the tubular riser as “the substrate support”). O’Neill, Moench and Hunter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of apparatus for thermally processing a semiconductor substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the substrate rotating module as taught by Hunter in the substrate heat-treating apparatus taught by O’Neill and Moench , for the purpose of rotating “the substrate 12 and … heat[ ing ] the substrate 12 uniformly to a target temperature.” Hunter, paragraph 33. Regarding claim 18 , which is a dependent claim of claim 17, O’Neill, Moench and Hunter teaches, in Fig. 2 of Hunter, the substrate rotating module (annotated Fig. 2) comprises; an inner rotating means (21) having a ring shape (paragraph 22) in which N poles and S poles are alternately formed in a circumferential direction (it is known that an electromagnetic rotor for a substrate heating apparatus has both N and S poles alternately formed in a circumferential direction, https://www.bing.com/search?q=does%20electromagnetic%20rotor%20for%20a%20substrate%20heating%20apparatus%20have%20n%20poles%20and%20s%20poles%20alternately%20formed%20in%20circumferential%20direction%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=does%20electromagnetic%20rotor%20for%20a%20substrate%20heating%20apparatus%20have%20n%20poles%20and%20s%20poles%20alternately%20formed%20in%20circumferential%20direction%3F&sc=0-134&sk=&cvid=33C8252F926D471687251154FD1CA414 , accessed 3/8/2026) and being coupled to a lower portion of the substrate support within the chamber lower space (the arrangement shown in Fig. 2), and an outer rotating means (23) placed outside the outer housing to face (shown in annotated Fig. 2) the inner rotating means (21) and configured to generate a magnetic force to rotate (paragraph 22) the inner rotating means (21). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hamada et al. (US 7592735), Gregor et al. (US 6800833), Shajii et al. (US 6461036), Tietz et al. (US 5848889), Stein et al. (US 4417822), Sonoda et al. (US 20200232143), Uematsu et al. (US 20150226610), Sorabji et al. (US 20080142497), Kubo (US 20060051077), Goto et al. (US 20040144767), Ikeda (US 20030027364), Kawarazaki (KR 20190058326), Sorabji et al. (KR 20100014208), Kubo (JP 2006093302) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6405 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-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 Helena Kosanovic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-9059 . 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.J.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761