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. Claims 1 – 22 are pending in this application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Applicant has provided brief explanations of relevance of cited document(s) JP-2004-45506, JP-2016-122988 and JP-2007-114265 on page 1 of the specification. Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below. Ozawa et al. (U.S Patent No. 9 , 170 ,0 29 B2 ) teaches a condensation trap comprising an inlet chamber, a vent chamber and an outlet chamber. The inlet chamber is configured to receive condensate fluid through an external opening therein. The vent chamber is in fluid communication with the inlet chamber via a first passageway that includes an internal opening of the inlet chamber. The internal opening is located substantially at an opposite end of the vent chamber as the external opening. The outlet chamber is in fluid communication with the vent chamber via a second passageway that includes an internal opening in a sidewall of the vent chamber and an interior opening in an end of the outlet chamber. The outlet chamber is configured to transmit the condensate fluid through an exterior opening located at an opposite end of the outlet chamber. A vent volume portion is greater than a total volume of an internal space of the inlet chamber. Suga et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 20040009005 A1) teaches a n image reading apparatus having an original base unit on which an original is placed, a light source for illuminating the original on the original base unit, a light-receiving unit for receiving light reflected from the original, air blasting unit for sending air in the direction away from the light source, and a wall surface for allowing air sent from the air blasting unit toward the light source. Ozawa (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 20160187942) provides a blast mechanism for optimizing an air blast in the main scanning direction and an air blast in the sub-scanning direction so as not to affect reading accuracy of an image, a first blast path for sending air in the main scanning direction and a second blast path for sending air in the sub-scanning direction are formed inside the housing, and collection efficiencies of air filters of the blast paths are set so that the efficiency in the main scanning direction is high than that in the sub-scanning direction. The blast mechanism includes a casing, first and second blast paths in the main and sub-scanning directions disposed in the casing, and air filters disposed in the respective blast paths. The dust collection efficiencies of the air filters are set so that the filter of the first blast path is higher than the filter of the second blast path. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: Light-receiving unit and Supply unit and Restriction Portion, Guide Portion and image-forming unit in claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 22. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Light-receiving Unit is read by the examiner as being item 226 of Fig. 2, described as elements that receive reflected light from a paper, Specification on ¶0044 and ¶0107. Supply Unit is read by the Examiner as being item 550 of Fig. 5, described as a fan that discharges cooling gas, specification on ¶0115 or ¶0117. Restriction Portion is read by the examiner as being item 730 of Fig. 8, described as a partition wall, specification on ¶0149. Guide Portion is read by the examiner as being item 700 of Fig. 8, described as a mechanism to guides cooling gas, specification on ¶0146 and/or ¶0180. Image-Forming Unit is read by the Examiner as being item 100 of Fig. 3, described as an image forming apparatus that acquires image data on which the image to be formed, specification on ¶0029. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 2 and 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Umebayshi et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2004/0091211 A1, hereinafter ‘Umebayshi’) in view of Van Der Meulen et at. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2020/0096882 A1, hereinafter ‘Van Der Meulen’). With respect to claim 1, Umebayshi teaches a n image-reading apparatus ( e.g., an optical communication device, ¶0039; note that said optical communication device has a photoelectric conversion for lithography , ¶0039, ¶0089 ) comprising: a light-receiving unit that receives reflected light from a recording medium ( e.g., light receiving element configured to receives reflected light from a reflective film, ¶0055, ¶0076, ¶0084 and ¶0089 - ¶0093 ) ; a substrate that supports the light-receiving unit ( e.g., a substrate that provides said light receiving element, ¶0076 ) ; an optical member ( e.g., a coupling lens 15, ¶0060, ¶0064 - ¶0065, Fig. 4 ) that is located at a position different from a position of the substrate in a substrate thickness direction corresponding to a thickness direction of the substrate and that guides the reflected light from the recording medium to the light-receiving unit ( e.g., said coupling lens that is mounted above said substrate in a substrate thickness direction corresponding to a thickness direction of said substrate and that leads the reflected light to said reflective film, ¶0043 - ¶0046, ¶0064 - ¶0065, ¶0124, Fig. 4 ) ; and a supply unit ( e.g., injecting means, ¶0110 - ¶0111 ) that supplies cooling gas that is used to cool the substrate to the substrate, wherein the cooling gas that is supplied to the substrate flows along the substrate ( e.g., injecting gas to said substrate, said gas (e.g. nitrogen) is injected into cavities along said substrate, ¶0110 - ¶0111; the nitrogen is well-known as an cooling agent ) ; but fails to specifically teach that said apparatus is a image-reading apparatus. However, in the same field of endeavor of supplying gas toward a substrate, Van Der Meulen teaches an image-reading apparatus ( e.g., a lithographic apparatus used in a scan mode, ¶0123 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Van Der Meulen since Van Der Meulen suggested within ¶0123 that such modification of having the apparatus of Van Der Meulen instead of the apparatus of Umebayshi would be convenient to read/scan any medium over a substrate in order to obtain a copy of the medium. With respect to claim 2 , Umebayshi in view of Van Der Meulen teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cooling gas that is supplied to the substrate is supplied to a first end portion of the substrate, flows along the substrate, and reaches a second end portion of the substrate ( e.g. the gas (nitrogen) that is injected to the substrate is injected to all cavities through the substrate, abstract, ¶0040, ¶0109 - ¶0111 ). With respect to claim 9, Umebayshi teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein an intake opening for taking the gas in the image-reading apparatus is provided, and wherein a filter is installed at the intake opening . However, Van Der Meulen teaches wherein an intake opening for taking gas in the image-reading apparatus is provided, and wherein a filter is installed at the intake opening ( Van Der Meulen: e.g., An outlet for providing gas in a lithography apparatus, and wherein a filter is arranged in a flow path of the gas, abstract, ¶0038, ¶0078, ¶0142, ¶0242 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Van Der Meulen since Van Der Meulen suggested within ¶0038 and ¶0078 that such modification of having a filter in a gas inlet/outlet would remove any contaminants or undesired particles in order to prevent any particles from being deposited. With respect to claim 10, Umebayshi teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teaches wherein a discharge opening that is used to discharge the cooling gas from the image-reading apparatus is provided, and wherein a filter is installed at the discharge opening . However, Van Der Meulen teaches wherein a discharge opening that is used to discharge the cooling gas from the image-reading apparatus is provided, and wherein a filter is installed at the discharge opening ( e.g., a n outlet for providing gas in the lithography apparatus, and wherein a filter is arranged in a flow path of the gas, abstract, ¶0041, ¶0078, ¶0142, ¶0242 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Van Der Meulen since Van Der Meulen suggested within ¶0038 and ¶0078 that such modification of having a filter in a gas inlet/outlet would remove any contaminants or undesired particles in order to prevent any particles from being deposited or ejected to the container/reservoir or the substrate, respectively . With respect to claim 11, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 1 , in addition to an intake opening for taking in cooling gas that is used to cool the substrate ( e.g., in order to inject gas, gas should be inherently filled or refilled in a container or chamber via an opening , also this limitation is shown in admitted prior art of Ozawa 917029 ). Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 3 - 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayshi in view of Nikipelov et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2021/0063893 A1, hereinafter ‘Nikpelov’). With respect to calm 3, Umebayshi teaches the image-reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a portion that restricts movement of the cooling gas toward the optical member. However, in the same field of endeavor of supplying/injecting /filling gas, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Nikipelov. In particular, Nikipelov teaches further comprising: a portion that restricts movement of the cooling gas toward the optical member ( Nikipelov: e.g., A component that restricts gas flow outward a lens (PS), ¶0033 - ¶0035 with ¶0121, ¶0163 - ¶0164, ¶0177, ¶0180 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Nikipelov since Nikipelov suggested within ¶0033 - ¶0035 with ¶0121 and ¶0163 - ¶0164 that such modification would restricts gas flow toward an optical path i n order to reduce contaminants. With respect to claim 4, Umebayshi in view of Nikipelov teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 3, wherein an intake opening for taking the cooling gas in the image-reading apparatus is provided, and wherein the restriction portion is disposed between the intake opening and the optical member ( e.g. an opening to apply/fill gas in the apparatus is provided, wherein the component is found between an opening and the lens (PS), Fig. 1A ). With respect to claim 5 , Umebayshi in view of Nikipelov teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a plurality of the restriction portions is disposed between the intake opening and the optical member ( e.g., refer to Fig. 1 A , wherein shows a plurality of part/portion between the opening and the lens (PS) ; design choice ) . With respect to claim 6, Umebayshi teaches th e image-reading apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein an intake opening for taking the cooling gas in the image-reading apparatus is provided, wherein a central portion of the intake opening in the substrate thickness direction is located at a position in the substrate thickness direction nearer than a position of the substrate in the substrate thickness direction to the optical member, and wherein a guide portion guides the cooling gas via the intake opening to the substrate. However, in the same field of endeavor of supplying/injecting/filling gas, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Nikipelov. In particular, Nikipelov teaches wherein an intake opening for taking the cooling gas in the image-reading apparatus is provided, wherein a central portion of the intake opening in the substrate thickness direction is located at a position in the substrate thickness direction nearer than a position of the substrate in the substrate thickness direction to the optical member, and wherein a guide portion guides the cooling gas via the intake opening to the substrate ( Fig. 1A shows a container/reservoir having an opening to fill gas, wherein the container/reservoir is self-centered and self-aligned in a thickness direction closer to a substrate than the PS, and it’s guided on it owns, ¶00 36 - ¶0037, ¶00 78, ¶0080, ¶0 187, ¶0 203, Fig. 1A ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Nikipelov since Nikipelov suggested within ¶0036 - ¶0037, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶0187, ¶0203, Fig. 1A that such modification would align the reservoir/container into a closer central position in order to prevent or delay the rate of contamination growth. With respect to claim 7, Umebayshi in view of NIkipelov teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 6, wherein Nikipelov visually teaches the guide portion inclines with respect to a direction in which the substrate extends ( e.g., when it’s necessary (e.g., when temperature is high), the container/reservoir moves closer to a substrate range, Fig. 1A , ¶0114, ¶0199 ) . With respect to claim 8 , Umebayshi in view of Nikipelov teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the guide portion is located between the intake opening and the optical member, guides the cooling gas to the substrate, and restricts movement of the cooling gas toward the optical member ( Fig. 1A shows a container/reservoir /chamber having an opening to fill /refill gas, wherein the container/reservoir is self-centered and self-aligned in a thickness direction closer to a substrate than the PS, and it’s guided on it owns, ¶0036 - ¶0037, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶0187, ¶0203, Fig. 1A ). With respect to claim 14, Umebayshi teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to teach wherein at least one central portion selected from a central portion of the intake opening in the substrate thickness direction and a central portion of the discharge opening in the substrate thickness direction is located at a position in the substrate thickness direction nearer than a position of the substrate in the substrate thickness direction to the optical member. However, Nikipelov teaches wherein at least one central portion selected from a central portion of the intake opening in the substrate thickness direction and a central portion of the discharge opening in the substrate thickness direction is located at a position in the substrate thickness direction nearer than a position of the substrate in the substrate thickness direction to the optical member ( Fig. 1A shows a container/reservoir having an opening to fill gas, wherein the container/reservoir is self-centered and self-aligned in a thickness direction closer to a substrate than the PS, and it’s guided on it owns, ¶0036 - ¶0037, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶0187, ¶0203, Fig. 1A ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Nikipelov since Nikipelov suggested within ¶0036 - ¶0037, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶0187, ¶0203, Fig. 1A that such modification would align the reservoir/container into a closer central position in order to prevent or delay the rate of contamination growth. With respect to claim 20 , Umebayshi teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to teach wherein at least the intake opening or the discharge opening is provided on an extension plane from the substrate . However, Nikipelov teaches wherein at least the intake opening or the discharge opening is provided on an extension plane from the substrate ( e.g. it’s simply arranging/installing/positioning the container/reservoir above the substrate; design choice ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Nikipelov since Nikipelov suggested within ¶0036 - ¶0037, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶ 0083 , ¶0203, Fig. 1A that such modification of placing the container/reservoir with gas filled/inside with an discharge opening above the substrate would be convenient to have an integrated container/reservoir within in order to avoid/prevent to use an external one. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayshi in view of Silverbrook (U.S PreGrant Publication No . 2009/0273632 A1, hereinafter ‘Silverbrook’ ). With respect to claim 22 , Umebayshi teaches the image-reading apparatus includes the image-reading apparatus according to claim 1 , but fails to teach that said image-reading apparatus is part of an image forming system that comprises an image-forming that forms an image on a recording medium. However, Silverbrook teaches an image-forming unit that forms an image on a recording medium ( e.g., any printer is configured to form an image on a medium, ¶0296 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image-reading apparatus of Umebayshi as taught by Silverbrook since Silverb r ook suggested in ¶0296 that such modification of having a printer would copy/print any data onto a recording medium. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 12, 13, 16 - 19 and 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With respect to claim 12 , none of the cited references teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the substrate includes a first end portion and a second end portion that are located at positions that differ from each other in the substrate extending direction, and wherein supposing a first vertical plane corresponding to a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the substrate extending direction and that extends through the first end portion, the intake opening is provided in a region opposite a region in which the second end portion is located, of the two regions that face each other with the first vertical plane interposed therebetween. Claim 13 is also objected because it depends on claim 12. With respect to claim 15, none of the cited references teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 14, wherein supposing a normal to the substrate that passes through the light-receiving unit, a light-reflecting member that serves as the optical member is disposed on the normal, and wherein supposing a middle point of a part of the normal between the light-receiving unit and the light-reflecting member, the at least one central portion is located at a position in the substrate thickness direction nearer than a position of the middle point in the substrate thickness direction to the substrate. Claim 16 is also objected because it depends on claim 15. With respect to claim 17, none of the cited references teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the substrate includes a first end portion and a second end portion that are located at positions that differ from each other in the substrate extending direction, wherein supposing a first vertical plane corresponding to a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the substrate extending direction and that extends through the first end portion, the intake opening is provided in a region opposite a region in which the second end portion is located, of the two regions that face each other with the first vertical plane interposed therebetween, wherein a position of the intake opening in the substrate thickness direction differs from a position of the substrate, and wherein a guide portion that inclines with respect to the substrate extending direction and that guides the cooling gas via the intake opening to the first end portion of the substrate is provided. Claims 18 - 19 are also objected because these depend on claim 17. With respect to claim 21 , none of the cited references teaches t he image-reading apparatus according to claim 11, wherein supposing an imaginary plane that extends along the substrate and that passes through the substrate, at least one central portion selected from a central portion of the intake opening in the substrate thickness direction and a central portion of the discharge opening in the substrate thickness direction is located in a region opposite a region in which the optical member is located, of the two regions that face each other with the plane interposed therebetween. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ookura (U.S PG Publication No. 20 18 / 0010960 A1) 1 Tanabe ( JP 2022-10551 or U.S PG Publication No. 2010/00118340 A1) 2 1 This reference teaches an optical sensor includes a substrate having a plurality of first light receiving elements in a surface, and a light blocking film having a plurality of first openings. The first light receiving elements are provided such that a direction of travel of incident light defined by each of the first openings is different from a thickness direction of the substrate and form at least one light receiving element set in which an angle of incidence defined between the direction of travel of the incident light and the thickness direction is the same with respect to the light receiving elements. In a view projected in the thickness direction, a positional relationship between the first light receiving elements included in a light receiving element set and the corresponding first openings has rotational symmetry of order 3 or more about an axis along the thickness direction. 2 This reference teaches a substrate processing method includes forming a liquid film on a substrate including a first region provided with a first film on an outermost surface thereof and a second region provided with a second film on an outermost surface thereof, the first film and the second film being different from each other in material. The method further includes forming a solidified film by solidifying the liquid film. The method further includes causing the solidified film on the first region to melt prior to the solidified film on the second region. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3481 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00AM - 5:00PM . 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 Benny Q TIEU can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7490 . 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. /JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682