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. Priority Acknowledgement is made of Applicants’ claim for benefit of US Provisional application 63/368,296 (filed 07/13/2022). 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. 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 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Polonchuk et al (Sci Rep, 2017) in view of Gao et al (circulation, 2017) . Polonchuk et al teaches a method for producing a 3D in vitro cardiac spheroid comprising cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, and cardiac fibroblasts (See Sec. Generation of cardiac spheroids from primary and iPSC-derived cardiac cells). Polonchuk et al produces cultures comprising human cardiomyocytes as well as iPSC derived cardiomyocytes (See abstract). In experiments using iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes, Polonchuk et al uses commercially available iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes (iCMs), iPSC-derived fibroblasts (iCFs), and human coronary artery endothelial cells (ECs) (See Sec. Cells and cardiac spheroid formation). The individual cell types were plated and cultured according to suppliers instructions (See Sec. Cells and Cardiac Spheroid formation). The cardiac spheroids were generated by co-culturing 6000 iCMS together with 3000 ECs and 3000 iCFs in hanging drop cultures. While iCM cultures were cultured at a 2:1:1 iCM:EC:iCF ratio, human cardiomyocyte (hCM) cultures were cultured at a 1:3:6 ratio. The different cell types and ratios were found to affect the kinetics of cardiac spheroid formation (See Sec. Generation of cardiac spheroids from primary and iPSC-derived cardiac cells). The different ratios used also affected vascular networks (See Sec. Discussion). Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 uses product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are considered only in so far as the process of production affects the final product. Therefore, if the product as claimed is the same or obvious over a product of the prior art (i.e., is not structurally or chemically distinct), the claim is considered unpatentable over the prior art, even though the prior art product is made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the process of production involves differentiating pluripotent stem cells to CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs, combining the cells at a 4:2:1:1 ratio to form a cardiac sphere, then further culturing the cells (i.e. the method of claim 1). The method of claim 1 does not disclose the length of time for which the cardiac sphere is cultured. Given that different cell types proliferate at different rates and have different viabilities, the ratio of CM:EC:SMC:CF in the cardiac spheroid produced by the method of claim 1 could change depending on the length of time for which the spheroid is cultured. Therefore, the final product of claim 7 is understood to require a cardiac spheroid comprising CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs. Polonchuk et al teaches a cardiac sphere comprising CMs, ECs, and CFs. Polonchuk et al does not teach a cardiac spheroid comprising SMCs. Gao et al teaches a cardiac patch comprising hiPSC derived CMs, ECs, and SMCs (See abstract). Gao et al further teaches engraftment of transplanted cardiomyocytes, as well as measurements of myocardial perfusion, metabolism, and contractile activity, improves when the cells are co-administered with ECs and SMCs (See Sec. Introduction). Given that Polonchuk et al and Gao et al both teach 3D cardiac cocultures and Gao et al further teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al by including SMCs in the cardiac spheroid. One would have been motivated to include SMCs in the cardiac sphere of Polonchuk et al in order to use the cardiac sphere as a cell transplant with improved engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gao et al teaches SMCs can be used in a 3D cardiac co-culture. Regarding claim 8: Following the discussion of claim 7 above, the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al is formed in a hanging drop culture of culture medium which reads on a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. Regarding claim 9: Polonchuk et al in view of Gao et al and Banerjee et al teaches a cardiac spheroid in a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (i.e. composition of claim 8). Polonchuk et al does not teach a method for treating a subject with a myocardial infarction. Gao et al teaches a method of treating myocardial infarction in a porcine model by transplanting cardiac muscle patches composed of CMs, ECs, and SMCs. Gao et al further teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. Given that Polonchuk et al in view of Gao and Banerjee teaches a 3D cell culture comprising CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs and Gao et al further teaches a 3D cardiac culture comprising CMs, ECs, and SMCs can be used to treat myocardial infarction in a porcine model, it would have been prima facie obvious to transplant the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al in view of Gao and Banerjee into a porcine model of myocardial infarction in order to use the cardiac spheroid a treatment for myocardial infarction. One would have been motivated to transplant the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al in view of Gao and Banerjee into a porcine model of myocardial infarction because Gao et all teaches transplanting a 3D culture comprising CMs, ECs, and SMCs can be used to treat myocardial infarction. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gao et al teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Polonchuk et al (Sci Rep, 2017) in view of Gao et al (circulation, 2017), and Banerjee et al (American journal of physiology-heart and circulatory physiology, 2007) . The teachings of Polonchuk et al and Gao et al are set forth above. Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 uses product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are considered only in so far as the process of production affects the final product. The final product of claim 7 is understood to require a cardiac spheroid comprising CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs (See Rejection of claim 7 over Polonchuk et al and Gao et al). Though the process of production does not make it clear that a ratio of CM:EC:SMC:CF is maintained at 4:2:1:1, such an embodiment is within the scope of claim 7. For purposes of compact prosecution, this rejection is made to address that specific embodiment. Polonchuk et al teaches a cardiac sphere comprising CMs, ECs, and CFs. Polonchuk et al does not teach a cardiac spheroid comprising SMCs or a 4:2:1:1 ratio of CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs. Gao et al teaches a cardiac patch comprising hiPSC derived CMs, ECs, and SMCs (See abstract). Gao et al further teaches engraftment of transplanted cardiomyocytes, as well as measurements of myocardial perfusion, metabolism, and contractile activity, improves when the cells are co-administered with ECs and SMCs (See Sec. Introduction). Given that Polonchuk et al and Gao et al both teach 3D cardiac cocultures and Gao et al further teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al by including SMCs in the cardiac spheroid. One would have been motivated to include SMCs in the cardiac sphere of Polonchuk et al in order to use the cardiac sphere as a cell transplant with improved engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gao et al teaches SMCs can be used in a 3D cardiac co-culture. Furthermore, Banerjee et al teaches the adult murine heart comprises 56% CMs, 7% ECs, 27% CFs, and 10% SMCs while the adult rat heart comprises ~30% myocytes, ~64% fibroblasts, and ~6% other cells types (See Secs. Adult murine cell populations and Discussion). Additionally, the populations of cells in the heart change during neonatal development (See Sec. Mouse and rat cell populations during development). Given that Polonchuk et al teaches a cardiac spheroid comprising different populations of cells found in the heart and Banerjee teaches the populations of cells in the heart alter depending on the species and age of the animal, it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the ratio of CM:EC:SMC:CF cells in the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al to arrive at the claimed ratio of 4:2:1:1 based on the species and age the cardiac spheroid is designed to emulate. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP2144.05(II). Regarding claim 8: Following the discussion of claim 7 above, the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al is formed in a hanging drop culture of culture medium which reads on a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. Regarding claim 9: Polonchuk et al in view of Gao et al and Banerjee et al teaches a cardiac spheroid in a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (i.e. composition of claim 8). Polonchuk et al does not teach a method for treating a subject with a myocardial infarction. Gao et al teaches a method of treating myocardial infarction in a porcine model by transplanting cardiac muscle patches composed of CMs, ECs, and SMCs. Gao et al further teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. Given that Polonchuk et al in view of Gao and Banerjee teaches a 3D cell culture comprising CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs and Gao et al further teaches a 3D cardiac culture comprising CMs, ECs, and SMCs can be used to treat myocardial infarction in a porcine model, it would have been prima facie obvious to transplant the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al in view of Gao and Banerjee into a porcine model of myocardial infarction in order to use the cardiac spheroid a treatment for myocardial infarction. One would have been motivated to transplant the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al in view of Gao and Banerjee into a porcine model of myocardial infarction because Gao et all teaches transplanting a 3D culture comprising CMs, ECs, and SMCs can be used to treat myocardial infarction. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gao et al teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 2, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Polonchuk et al (Sci Rep, 2017) in view of Kahn-Krell et al (Front Bioeng biotechnol., June, 2021), Gao et al (circulation, 2017), Sharma et al (JoVE, 2021), and Banerjee et al (American journal of physiology-heart and circulatory physiology, 2007) . The teachings of Polonchuk et al, Gao et al, and Banerjee et al are set forth above. Polonchuk et al in view of Gao et al, and Banerjee et al render claims 7-9 obvious. Regarding claims 1 and 2: Polonchuk et al teaches method for producing a cardiac spheroid comprising mixing iCMs, ECs, and iCFs to produce a cardiac cell mixture and culturing the cardiac cell mixture under conditions suitable to form cardiac spheroids. Polonchuk et al does not teach steps (a)-(f) (Step (a)) Polonchuk et al does not teach a step of culturing pluripotent stem cells under conditions suitable to induce differentiation into cardiomyocyte (CM) spheroids. Polonchuk et al does however teach a method which uses iPSC derived CMs. Therefore, the CMs of the method of Polonchuk et al were inherently produced by a step of culturing iPSCs under conditions suitable to induce differentiation into CMs. Furthermore, Kahn-Krell et al teaches a method for differentiating hiPSCs to CM spheres (See Sec. HiPSC Culture and Differentiation). Kahn-Krell et al further teaches suspension-differentiated CM (reads on CM spheroids) expressed higher levels of cardiomyocyte maturation markers than monolayer-differentiated hiPSC-CMs (See Sec. Discussion and Maturity of HiPSC-CMs in Suspension-Differentiated Spheroids). Given that Polonchuk et al teaches a method of producing cardiac spheroids from iPSC-derived CMs and Kahn-Krell et al teaches differentiating CMs from iPSCs as spheroids results in more mature CMs than differentiating CMs from iPSCs in a monolayer, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of Polonchuk et al by adding a step of differentiating iPSCs into CM spheroids (reads on step (a)). One would have been motivated to modify the method of Polonchuk et al in order to use more mature CMs to produce the cardiac spheroid. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Kahn-Krell teaches a method for differentiating iPSCs to CM spheroids. (Step (b)) The method of Polonchuk et al uses primary ECs and thus does not comprise a step of culturing pluripotent stem cells under conditions suitable to induce differentiating into ECs. Gao et al teaches a method for producing a cardiac patch comprising hiPSC derived CMs, ECs, and SMCs (See abstract). The method of Gao et al comprises a step of culturing hiPSCs under conditions that result in differentiation to ECs (See Supplemental Methods, Sec. Generation of cardiac cells from hiPSCs). Given that Polonchuk et al and Gao et al both teach 3D cardiac cocultures comprising ECs, it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute the step of culturing primary ECs in the method of Polonchuk et al for a step of differentiating iPSCs into ECs as taught by Gao et al. One would have expected the resulting ECs produced by iPSC differentiation to work equivocally with primary ECs, in the co-culture of Polonchuk et al, because Gao et al teaches the iPSC derived ECs can be used in a cardiac co-culture. Substitution of one element for another known in the field, wherein the result of the substitution would have been predictable is considered to be obvious. See KSR International Co. V Teleflex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US2007) at page 1395. (Step (c)) Polonchuk et al does not teach a method comprising culturing smooth muscle cells (SMCs). Gao et al teaches a method for producing a cardiac patch comprising hiPSC derived CMs, ECs, and SMCs (See abstract). Gao et al further teaches engraftment of transplanted cardiomyocytes, as well as measurements of myocardial perfusion, metabolism, and contractile activity, improves when the cells are co-administered with ECs and SMCs (See Sec. Introduction). The method of Gao et al comprises a step of culturing hiPSCs under conditions that result in differentiation to SMCs (See Supplemental Methods, Sec. Generation of cardiac cells from hiPSCs). Given that Polonchuk et al and Gao et al both teach 3D cardiac cocultures and Gao et al further teaches transplanting cardiomyocytes along with ECs and SMCs improves engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of producing cardiac spheres of Polonchuk et al to include a step of culturing iPSCs to produce SMCs as taught by Gao in order to include SMCs in the final cardiac sphere. One would have been motivated to modify the method of Polonchuk et al to include SMCs in the cardiac sphere of Polonchuk et al in order to use the cardiac sphere as a cell transplant with improved engraftment, metabolism, and contractile activity. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gao et al teaches a method of differentiating iPSCs to SMCs and further teaches the SMCs can be used in a 3D cardiac co-culture. (Step (d)) While Polonchuk et al does not teach a step of culturing pluripotent stem cells under conditions suitable to induce differentiation into cardiac fibroblasts (step (d)), Polonchuk et al does disclose using iPSC derived cardiac fibroblasts. Therefore, the cardiac fibroblasts used in the method of Polonchuk et al were inherently produced by a step of culturing pluripotent stem cells under conditions suitable to induce differentiation into cardiac fibroblasts. (Step (e)) Polonchuk et al discloses a method of producing a cardiac spheroid comprising steps of culturing iCMs, ECs, and iCFs, then combining the cells at a ratio of 2:1:1. It would have been prima facie obvious to include SMCs in the culture method of Polonchuk et al (See rejection of step (c)) above). Sharma et al teaches a method of producing cardiac spheroids comprising iCMs, ECs, and CFs (See abstract) The method of Sharma comprises steps of culturing individual cell types then dissociating the cells to create cell suspensions which can be counted and combined to form a cardiac spheroid at the desired ratio (See steps 3.2-3.12). Although Polonchuk et al does not teach a step of dissociating the CM spheroids, ECs, SMCs and CFs to produce cell suspensions, it would have been prima facie obvious to include a step of dissociating the individual cell type and producing cell suspension in the method of Polonchuk et al. One would have been motivated to include a dissociation step in the method of Polonchuk et al because Sharma et al teaches cells should be dissociated in order to count the cells which is a necessary step for combining cells at a specific ratio. There is a reasonable expectation of success because dissociating cells to form suspensions is a standard technique in the field required for counting and replating cells. (Step (f)) Polonchuk et al discloses a method of producing a cardiac spheroid comprising steps of culturing iCMs, ECs, and iCFs, then combining the cells at a ratio of 2:1:1. It would have been prima facie obvious to include SMCs in the culture method of Polonchuk et al (See rejection of step (c)) above). Polonchuk et al further teaches the ratio of cells in the spheroid affects the kinetics of cardiac sphere formation. Polonchuk et al does not teach combining the cells at a 4:2:1:1 ratio of CM:EC:SMC:CF. Banerjee et al investigates the cell populations of the adult murine heart (See abstract). Specifically, Banerjee et al finds the adult murine heart comprises 56% CMs, 7% ECs, 27% CFs, and 10% SMCs (See Sec. Adult murine cell populations). Banerjee further teaches the adult rat heart comprises ~30% myocytes, ~64% fibroblasts, and ~6% other cells types (See Sec. Discussion). Additionally, the populations of cells in the heart change during neonatal development (See Sec. Mouse and rat cell populations during development). Given that Polonchuk et al teaches a method for forming a cardiac spheroid comprising different populations of cells found in the heart and Banerjee teaches the populations of cells in the heart alter depending on the species and age of the animal, it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the ratio of CM:EC:SMC:CF cells in the cardiac spheroid of Polonchuk et al to arrive at the claimed ratio of 4:2:1:1 based on the species and age the cardiac spheroid is designed to emulate. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP2144.05(II). Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Polonchuk et al (Sci Rep, 2017) in view of Kahn-Krell et al (Front Bioeng biotechnol., June, 2021), Gao et al (circulation, 2017), Sharma et al (JoVE, 2021), Banerjee et al (American journal of physiology-heart and circulatory physiology, 2007) , and Zhu et al (Circ Res, 2018). The teachings of Polonchuk et al, Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al are set forth above. Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al render claims 1-2 and 7-9 obvious. Regarding claims 3 and 4: Following the discussion of claims 1 and 2 above, Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al teach a method for producing cardiac spheroids comprising iPSC derived CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs. Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al do not teach the iPSCs overexpress CCND2 or the iPSCs are engineered to contain a heterologous CCND2 gene operably linked to an MHC promoter. Zhu et al teaches cardiomyocytes derived from hiPSC overexpressing CCND2 under an MHC promoter have a higher engraftment rate and regenerative potential than cardiomyocytes produced from wild-type hiPSCs Given that Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al teach a method of forming a cardiac spheroid comprising a step of differentiating iPSCs into CMs and Zhu et al teaches CMs produced from hiPSCs overexpressing CCND2 under an MHC promoter have higher regenerative potential, it would have been prima facie obvious to use the CCND2 overexpressing iPSCs, taught by Zhu et al, to produce the CM, EC, SMC, and CF cells in the method of Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al. One would have been motivated to use CCND2 overexpressing iPSCs in the method of Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al because Zhu et al teaches CMs produced from iPSCs overexpressing CCND2 under an MHC promoter have higher regenerative potential. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, and Sharma et al teach methods of differentiating iPSCs into CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Polonchuk et al (Sci Rep, 2017) in view of Kahn-Krell et al (Front Bioeng biotechnol., June, 2021), Gao et al (circulation, 2017), Sharma et al (JoVE, 2021), Banerjee et al (American journal of physiology-heart and circulatory physiology, 2007) , and Mattapally (JAHA, 2018). The teachings of Polonchuk et al, Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al are set forth above. Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al render claims 1-2 and 7-9 obvious. Regarding claims 5 and 6: Following the discussion of claims 1 and 2 above, Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al teach a method for producing cardiac spheroids comprising iPSC derived CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs. Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al do not teach the iPSCs are engineered to delete HLA-I or HLA-II. Mattapally et al teaches HLAI/II knockout hiPSCs can be differentiated to cardiomyocytes that induce little or no activity in human immune cells and are consequently suitable for allogeneic transplantation (See Abstract). Given that Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al teach a method of forming a cardiac spheroid comprising a step of differentiating iPSCs into CMs and Mattapally et al teaches CMs produced from HLAI/II knockout hiPSCs produce little or no immune cell activity, it would have been prima facie obvious to use the HLAI/II knockout iPSCs, taught by Mattapally et al, to produce the CM, EC, SMC, and CF cells in the method of Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al. One would have been motivated to use HLAI/II knockout iPSCs in the method of Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, Sharma et al, and Banerjee et al because Mattapally et al teaches CMs produced from HLAI/II knockout iPSCs induce little or no immune cell activity. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Polonchuk et al in view of Kahn-Krell et al, Gao et al, and Sharma et al teach methods of differentiating iPSCs into CMs, ECs, SMCs, and CFs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARISOL A O'NEILL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2490 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 EST . 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 Christopher Babic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8507 . 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. /MARISOL ANN O'NEILL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1633 /ALLISON M FOX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633