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 The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 20 , the term “ wherein the outputting step includes outputting the vibration signal at least first time and a second time, the first time being different from the second time ” should be replaced with -- wherein the outputting step includes outputting the vibration signal at least a first time and a second time, the first time being different from the second time -- to address a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required and applicant should carefully review the Claims for any other informalities. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 2 and 5-6 and claims dependent thereon 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 2 , the term “ wherein the first implant is a femoral component of a knee implant and the second implant is a tibial component of a knee implant " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the second instance of the term “a knee implant” should be interpreted. Either the second instance of the phrase “a knee implant” in line 2 is referring to the same “knee implant” as the first instance of the phrase “a knee implant” or these could be separate knee implant devices, e.g. implants coupled to separate knees. Examiner will be interpreting the claim as the former and suggests amending the claim to -- wherein the first implant is a femoral component of a knee implant and the second implant is a tibial component of [[ a ]] the knee implant --. Claim s 5 and 6 recite the limitation " the tibial insert. " There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding Claim s 5 and 6 , the term “ the tibial insert " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the term refers to the “tibial component of a knee implant” or a separate “insert” noted in claim 3. Examiner will be interpreting the claim as the former and suggests amending the claims to -- the tibial insert component --. 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. Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding Claim 2 1, the claim(s) recites “ a change in vibration signature is detected ” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process) . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: - The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field. - The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment. - The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. - The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application. For this part of the 101 analysis , the following additional limitations are considered: “ coupling a first implant to a first bone of a joint; ” “ coupling a second implant to a second bone of the joint; ” “ sensing a vibration signal emitted through the joint with a sensor positioned in the any of the first or second implants; ” “ outputting a vibration signature from a processor to an external source, the vibration signature being derived from the vibration signal. ” “ wherein the outputting step includes outputting the vibration signal at least first time and a second time, the first time being different from the second time. ” “ creating an alert when a change in vibration signature is detected ” The additional elements are in sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity. Furthermore, implants and sensors are general field of use and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry. None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of identifying a change in a vibration signature from received vibration data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Regarding Claim 2 2 , the claim(s) recites “ comparing the reference movement value to the secondary movement value. ” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process) . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: - The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field. - The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment. - The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. - The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application. For this part of the 101 analysis , the following additional limitations are considered: “ coupling a first implant to a first bone of a joint; “ coupling a second implant to a second bone of the joint, the second implant including an insert contacting the first implant; ” “ measuring a reference movement value at a first time; ” “ measuring a secondary movement value at a second time; ” The additional elements are in sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Furthermore, implants and inserts are general field of use. None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of comparing movement data over time and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2 3 -25 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the mental steps, add details to the extrasolution data gathering steps, add general field of use components to facilitate the extrasolution data gathering, and add mental steps. 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 . Claim(s) 1 -4, 9-11, 13 -14 , and 17-2 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al (US 2014/0275815) (“Stein 815 ”) . Regarding Claim 1, Stein 815 teaches a n implant system ( Figs. 1, 27, 31, and 33, [0187] -[0201], [0216] -[0228] where [0192] teaches a typical knee joint replacement utilizes an insert, a femoral prosthetic component and a tibial prosthetic component as shown in Fig. 1 and further where an insert is shown in Fig. 27, an insert interfacing with a tibial prosthetic component is shown in Figs 31 and 33, and a femoral component isn’t shown but stated as interfacing the combined insert and tibial prosthetic component in [0228]) comprising: a first implant coupled to a first bone of a joint (Fig. 1, [0063], [0065] femoral prosthetic component 104 , [0216] ) ; a second implant coupled to a second bone of a joint (Fig. 1, [0063], [0065] tibial prosthetic component 10 6, [0216], Fig. 31, tibial prosthetic component 3100 ) ; where a knee joint replacement is stated as benefitting from a permanent monitoring of implant status in the final prosthetic components ([0187] “ Permanent sensors in the final prosthetic components can provide periodic data related to the status of the implant in use. ”), and Stein 815 further teaches implant system that judges implant status ( [0297]-[0308] implant system and method for judging stability of implant system by imparting an impulse that produces a vibration signature in the implant, [0302] method can be applied orthopedic implants, prosthetic components, etc ,) comprising: a first implant coupled to a bone of a joint (Figs. 47, [0297] -[ 0299] first implant / orthopedic implant is a prosthetic component 5054 coupled to bone 5050 , [0299] specifically the prosthetic component 5054 is a component of a joint of the muscular-skeletal system and couples to bone , [0187]-[0192] where example implants coupled to a bone of a joint are a tibial prosthetic component 106 and femoral prosthetic component 104 connecting to a knee joint ) ; an acoustic exciter configured to vibrate at least the bone (Fig. 4 7 , [0299] -[ 0300] acoustic exciter / transducer 5058 which is a device that provides an impulse to generate a vibration in the prosthetic component, where ultrasonic pulses are noted as possible sources for the impulse ) ; a transducer to detect a vibration signal of the first implant ([0300] accelerometer 5056 receives quantitative measurement data) ; and a processor operatively coupled to the transducer, the processor configured to output a vibration signature from the vibration signal to an external source ([0298] electronic circuitry 5062 couples to the accelerometer 5056 and has control logic enabling accelerometer to generate data related to the impulse and transmit the data to a remote system 5060, [0203] where example of electronic circuitry in a prosthetic component includes a processor ) , Stein 815 does not explicitly teach the first embodiment / system of Fig. 47 being applied to an entire knee replacement system as noted in Figs, 1, 27, 31, and 33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the implant status monitoring of Fig. 47 to both prosthetic components of the knee replacement implant as shown in Figs. 1, 27, 31, and 33 as a way to judge whether the implants are loosening and requiring intervention. Regarding Claim 2, Stein 815 teaches t he implant system of claim 1, wherein the first implant is a femoral component of a knee implant and the second implant is a tibial component of a knee implant ( See Claim 1 Rejection) . Regarding Claim 3, Stein 815 teaches t he implant system of claim 2, further including an insert located between the femoral component and the tibial component ( See Claim 2 Rejection , [0228] insert 3116 would be located between the femoral component and the tibial component) . Regarding Claim 4, Stein 815 teaches t he implant system of claim 1, wherein the acoustic exciter is an ultrasound exciter ( See Claim 1 Rejection ) . Regarding Claim 9, Stein 815 teaches t he implant system of claim 1, further comprising an analog to digital converter, the converter configured to received data ([0117] oscillation control for ultrasound waves, [0121] the received ultrasound waves and converter from analog to digital by amplifier 636) where the received data would be the vibration signal converted to the vibration signature ( See Claim 1 Rejection ) . Regarding Claim 10, Stein 815 tea ches the implant system of claim 1, wherein the vibration signature includes at least one of a response, peak, amplitude, and magnitude of the vibration signal ([0288] changed frequency response in motion measured by prosthetic component due to loosening) . Regarding Claim 11, Stein 815 teaches t he implant system of claim 10, wherein a change in the vibration signature over time indicates implant loosening ( See Claim 10 Rejection, [0299], [0302]) . Regarding Claim 13, Stein 815 teaches t he implant system of claim 1, wherein the external source is any of a computer, tablet, and smartphone ([0205] remote systems may process data with computers) . Regarding Claim 14 , Stein 815 teaches the implant system of claim 1, the implant system further comprising a guidance system configured to position the acoustic exciter ([0264] accelerometer can be included to provide positioning information of the joint, this position data can be used to identify where to position an acoustic exciter). Regarding Claim 17, Stein 815 teaches a monitor of implant movement (Figs. 1, 27, 31, and 33, [0187] -[ 0201], [0216]-[0228] where [0192] teaches a typical knee joint replacement utilizes an insert, a femoral prosthetic component and a tibial prosthetic component as shown in Fig. 1) , the method comprising: coupling a first implant to a first bone of a joint (Fig. 1, [0063], [0065] femoral prosthetic component 104 coupled to femur at a knee joint); coupling a second implant to a second bone of the joint (Fig. 1, [0063], [0065] tibial prosthetic component 106 coupled to tibia at a knee joint, [0216], Fig. 31, tibial prosthetic component 3100); where a knee joint replacement is stated as benefitting from a permanent monitoring of implant status in the final prosthetic components ([0187] “ Permanent sensors in the final prosthetic components can provide periodic data related to the status of the implant in use. ”), and Stein 815 further teaches a method for monitoring implant movement ([0297]-[0308] implant system and method for judging stability of implant system by imparting an impulse that produces a vibration signature in the implant, [0302] method can be applied orthopedic implants, prosthetic components, etc ,) comprising: coupling a n implant to a bone of a joint (Figs. 47, [0297] -[ 0299] first implant / orthopedic implant is a prosthetic component 5054 coupled to bone 5050, [0299] specifically the prosthetic component 5054 is a component of a joint of the muscular-skeletal system and couples to bone, [0187]-[0192] where example implants coupled to a bone of a joint are a tibial prosthetic component 106 and femoral prosthetic component 104 connecting to a knee joint) ; sensing a vibration signal emitted through the joint with a sensor positioned in the any of the first or second implants ([0304] -[ 0305] provides an impulse to generate a vibration in the prosthetic component, accelerometer 5056 receives quantitative measurement data related to the impulse) ; and outputting a vibration signature from a processor to an external source, the vibration signature being derived from the vibration signal ([0305] generate data related to the impulse and transmit the data to a remote system, [0302] the data being a vibration signature, [0203] where example of electronic circuitry in a prosthetic component includes a processor), Stein 815 does not explicitly teach the first embodiment / method of Fig. 4 8 being applied to an entire knee replacement system as noted in Figs, 1, 27, 31, and 33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the implant status monitoring of Fig. 4 8 to both prosthetic components of the knee replacement implant as shown in Figs. 1, 27, 31, and 33 as a way to judge whether the implants are loosening and requiring intervention. Regarding Claim 18, Stein 815 teaches t he method of claim 17, wherein the coupling steps include coupling the first implant to a femur and coupling the second implant to a tibia ( See Claim 17 Rejection) . Regarding Claim 19, Stein 815 teaches t he method of claim 17, further comprising a step of vibrating at least one of the first or second bones using an acoustic exciter ([0302], [0304] ultrasonic probe outputting an ultrasonic pulse to generate the impulse) . Regarding Claim 20, Stein 815 teaches t he method of claim 17, wherein the outputting step includes outputting the vibration signal ([0293] where the impulse data can be measured multiple times for averaging, indicating the vibration signal will occur at least a first time and a second time, the first time being different from the second time ) and considering data at least a first time and a second time, the first time being different from the second time ([0113] changes due to energy propagation, i.e. ultrasound pulse, reveal movements of changes in the physical property of the measured structure, [0254] long term joint monitoring involves multiple measurements made over time), Stein 815 does not explicitly teach outputting multiple vibration signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the multiple impulses of Stein 815 for evaluating implant status by an averaging could also be used to establish a trend in the vibration signature as Stein 815 teaches this is how an occurring in the structure state is identified ([0254]). Regarding Claim 21, Stein 815 teaches t he method of claim 20, further comprising creating an a lert when a change in vibration signature is detected ( [0254] long term implant monitoring involves comparing measurement characteristic to predetermined values corresponding to problems, [0264] creating messages to motivate patient intervention, [0308] a message is output with the implant status . These teachings together would be applied to the implant status monitoring with setting a predetermined value for implant loosening and generating a report to identify what treatment is needed, i.e. an alert ) . Regarding Claim 22, Stein 815 teaches a monitor of implant movement (Figs. 1, 27, 31, and 33, [0187] -[ 0201], [0216]-[0228] where [0192] teaches a typical knee joint replacement utilizes an insert, a femoral prosthetic component and a tibial prosthetic component as shown in Fig. 1) , the method comprising: coupling a first implant to a first bone of a joint (Fig. 1, [0063], [0065] femoral prosthetic component 104 coupled to femur at a knee joint); coupling a second implant to a second bone of the joint (Fig. 1, [0063], [0065] tibial prosthetic component 106 coupled to tibia at a knee joint, [0216], Fig. 31, tibial prosthetic component 3100), the second implant including an insert contacting the first implant (Fig. 31, insert 3116) ; where a knee joint replacement is stated as benefitting from a permanent monitoring of implant status in the final prosthetic components ([0187] “ Permanent sensors in the final prosthetic components can provide periodic data related to the status of the implant in use. ”), and Stein 815 further teaches a method for monitoring implant position over time ([0297]-[0308] implant system and method for judging stability of implant system by imparting an impulse that produces a vibration signature in the implant, [0302] method can be applied orthopedic implants, prosthetic components, etc ,) comprising: coupling a n implant to a bone of a joint (Figs. 47, [0297] -[ 0299] first implant / orthopedic implant is a prosthetic component 5054 coupled to bone 5050, [0299] specifically the prosthetic component 5054 is a component of a joint of the muscular-skeletal system and couples to bone, [0187]-[0192] where example implants coupled to a bone of a joint are a tibial prosthetic component 106 and femoral prosthetic component 104 connecting to a knee joint) ; measuring a reference movement value at a first time ([0304] -[ 0305] provides an impulse to generate a vibration in the prosthetic component, accelerometer 5056 receives quantitative measurement data related to the impulse) ; and measuring a secondary movement value at a second time ([0293] where the impulse data can be measured multiple times, indicating the vibration signal will occur at least a first time and a second time, the first time being different from the second time ) ; wherein comparing a reference value to a secondary value is how one identifies changes in the system ([0113] changes due to energy propagation, i.e. ultrasound pulse, reveal movements of changes in the physical property of the measured structure, [0254] long term joint monitoring involves multiple measurements made over time), Stein 815 does not explicitly teach comparing the reference movement value to the secondary movement value . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the multiple impulses of Stein 815 for evaluating implant status by an averaging could also be used to establish a trend in the vibration signature as Stein 815 teaches this is how an occurring in the structure state is identified ([0254]). Regarding Claim 2 3 , Stein 815 teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising measuring transducer data from a transducer at the first time and at the second time to obtain a first sensor data and a second sensor data respectively ( See Claim 22 Rejection , [0304]-[0305] accelerometer 5056 / transducer receives quantitative measurement data related to the impulse) the transducer embedded in the insert ([0192] insert outlined as having sensing components, where sensing components, such as capacitors measuring load, may be moved to different components as seen fit, i.e. from the tibial prosthetic component to the insert), Regarding Claim 24, Stein 815 teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the transducer data includes vibration data ( See Claim 23 Rejection ) . Regardin g Claim 25, Stein 815 teaches the method of claim 24, further comprising creating an alert when a change between a first and second transducer data exceeds a predetermined value ([0254] long term implant monitoring involves comparing measurement characteristic to predetermined values corresponding to problems, [0264] creating messages to motivate patient intervention, [0308] a message is output with the implant status. These teachings together would be applied to the implant status monitoring with setting a predetermined value for implant loosening and generating a report to identify what treatment is needed, i.e. an alert ) . Claim(s) 5- 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein 815 in view of Stein et al (US 2013/0079 68 0) (“Stein 68 0”). Regarding Claim 5, while Stein 815 teaches the implant system of claim 4, wherein a separate transducer includes load transducers, each of the load transducers disposed adjacent a condyle ([0068] two condyle-specific sensors 100 may be placed between the implants to measure load specific to each condyle, [0090] where condyle-specific measurements can be used to judge differences in loading between the condyles, [0220] where load pads are placed at adjacent each articular surface to measure “ the force, pressure, or load magnitude and the position of applied force, pressure, or load ” [0221] however other sensors for measuring load may be used) and wherein the accelerometer transducer is disposed in the tibial insert adjacent a condyle ([0286] tibial tray, the portion of the tibial prosthetic component directly under the insert, may comprise the accelerometer 5016 for judging impact force, [0227]-[0228] the insert is adjacent the condyles of the femur at the articular surfaces), their combined efforts fail to teach the accelerometer transducer is a first and second transducer, each disposed adjacent a condyle. However Stein 680 teaches an implanted joint monitor coupled to bone ([0059]-[0060]) where spaced apart units use ultrasound to characterize implant function ([0067]) and that a load plate can be paired with accelerometer to provide more specific parameters of interest ([0100] - [0105] “ The electronic circuitry 1610 in conjunction with the accelerometer 1614 and sensors 1602 can measure parameters of interest (e.g., distributions of load, force, pressure, displacement, movement, rotation, torque, location, and acceleration) relative to orientations of spinal instrument 400 ” ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to pair the load pads of Stein 815 each with specific accelerometers as Stein 680 teaches that pairing the load pads and accelerometers enables the collection of greater levels of parameter of interest. This can better characterize the difference in load at each condyle improving the long-term monitoring functionality of Stein 815. Regarding Claim 6, Stein 815 and Stein 680 teach t he implant system of claim 5, wherein the processor is disposed in the tibial insert ( See Claim 5 Rejection , [0216], [0225] tibial prosthetic component includes electronic circuitry 3110, electronic circuitry 3110 includes a processor) . Regarding Claim 7, Stein 815 and Stein 680 teach t he implant system of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to wirelessly communicate the vibration signature with the external source (Fig. 48, [0302] -[ 0308] method of utilizing vibration signature detection, [0305] where impulse measurement data is transmitted to a remote system, [0300] transmission is wireless) . Regarding Claim 8, Stein 815 and Stein 680 teach the implant system of claim 7, and Stein 680 teaches wherein the wireless communication is a Bluetooth communication ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the wireless communication to a remote device of Stein 815 as Bluetooth communication as taught by Stein 680 as a simple substitution of one form of network communication for another to obtain predictable results of reliable transmission of vibration data for processing. Regarding Claim 12 , while Stein 815 teaches the implant system of claim 11, Stein fails to teach wherein a change in the vibration signature over time indicates implant subsidence. However Stein 680 teaches a n implanted joint monitor coupled to bone ([0059] -[ 0060]) where spaced apart units coupled to different bones around a joint use ultrasound to characterize implant function ( [0065]- [0067]) where this particular sensing configuration enables the identification of implant subsidence ([0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the teaching of Stein 680 of applying movement sensors at both implants enables a relative movement identification would be applied to the spaced apart implants around a joint of Stein 815 to enjoy the benefit outlined in [0067] “ One advantage of two or more sensors is that they move closer and farther apart relative to one another as a result of the motion; actions that improve an assessment of the energy wave, for example, due to the frequency characteristics of the sensors and impedance characteristics of the procedure area under investigation. Again, the relative separation of sensors 352 and 366 may permit taking different measurements without sensor adjustment that could otherwise require changing a frequency, amplitude, or phase of the transmitted energy wave, for example, to match impedances. ” Finally such a benefit would be the data, i.e. Stein 815’s vibration data, can now reflect implant subsidence, an improvement in the identification provided by Stein 815’s implant monitoring. Claim(s) 1 5 -16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein 815 in view of Trabish et al (US 2020/0405239) (“ Trabish ”). Regarding Claim 1 5 , while Stein 815 teaches the implant system of claim 1, Stein 815 fails to teach the wherein the guidance system includes an inertial measurement unit . However Trabish teaches a n orthopedic measuring system (Abstract) utilizing implants around a knee joint, where the positioning of the implants are tracked by inertial measurement units ([0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the positioning sensor of accelerometer taught by Stein 815 as an inertial measurement unit as taught by Trabish as a simple substitution of one movement sensing unit for another to obtain predictable results of reliably sampled movement data. Regarding Claim 16, Stein 815 and Stindel teaches the implant system of claim 15, and Stein 815 teaches wherein the inertial measurement unit is located in the first or second implant ( See Claim 14 Rejection , [0264] the referenced Fig. 31 including the electronic circuitry 3110 is the tibial implant ) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1073 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 pm . 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 Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5596 . 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. / FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JAIRO H. PORTILLO/ Examiner Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791