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 Status Claims 1-20 , as filed on September 15, 2023, are currently pending. Claim Objections Claims 5, 6, 13, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 5 , line s 7-8 recite “ the dry fluorescent compound it to adhere….” This appears to be grammatically incorrect; the term “it” should be removed. In claim 5 , line 11 recites “and apply heat….” This appears to be grammatically incorrect; “applying” should be used rather than “apply.” In claim 13 , line 1, “wherein wherein” should read “wherein.” In claim 15 , line 3, the recitation of “in the range of from 1 to 20 wt. %” appears to be grammatically incorrect. Claim 6 is directed to a “method of making a cat litter” but depends from claim 1 , which is directed to a cat litter. This appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as dependent from claim 5 , which is directed to a method of making a cat litter. Claim 20 is directed to a “coated cat litter” but depends from claim 15 , which is directed to a method of making a cat litter. This appears to be typographical error. For the purpose of examination, claim 20 will be interpreted as dependent from claim 16 , which is directed to a coated cat litter. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 3- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the at least one fluorescent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the absorbent material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “ lightly ” in claim 5 ( line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ lightly ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much cellulose solution would be appropriate to “lightly wet” a dry particulate material. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the material" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as “the dry particulate material” for the purpose of examination. The term “ immediately ” in claim 5 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ immediately ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The timing interval between achieving a “lighted wet” or “wetted material” and the addition of the dry fluorescent compound is unclear . For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as requiring the step (b) to follow step (a) in series. The term “ small ” in claim 5 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ small ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much dry fluorescent compound would constitute a “small” amount. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wetted material" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “to adhere to the wetted material” in line 8. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is being adhered in this step. Is the cellulose solution adhering the dry fluorescent compound to the wetted material? Claim 5 recites “repeating Steps (b) through (d) all the dry fluorescent compound is added” in line 10. As the claim has not defined any amount of dry fluorescent compound to be used, it is unclear when the process would cease repeating steps (b) through (d). Claim 5 recites “the remaining cellulose solution” in line 11. As the claim has not defined any amount of cellulose solution to be used in the process as a whole, or in steps (a) and (c) , it is unclear what amount would make up “the remaining” amount. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the coating" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fluorescent material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because the examiner is not able to ascertain the scope of the method disclosed in claims 5-8 , claims 5-8 have not been further treated on their merits. The term “ slowly ” in claim 9 (line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ slowly ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rate at which the coating solution is to be added to the dry particulate material is unclear. The term “ lightly ” in claim 9 ( line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ lightly ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much cellulose solution would be appropriate to “lightly wet” a dry particulate material. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the material" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is interpreted as “the dry particulate material” for the purpose of examination. Claim 9 recites “repeating as needed to completely coat the particulate material” in line 7. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what step or steps are being repeated. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coated particulate material" in lines 8, 9, and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the fluorescent material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation " the solid absorbent " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 15 , line 2, the recitation of “wherein the coating solution to the solid absorbent is applied in 1:3 to a 1:30 range” renders the claim indefinite. The phrasing of this limitation is generally unclear. It is unclear what the range is relative to – is this an amount of coating solution (e.g., 1 part) relative to an amount of solid absorbent (e.g., 3 to 30 parts)? Claim 16 recites the limitation "the cat litter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this a precursor to “the coated cat litter” or intended to be the same. This also applies to claim 18 , which recites the limitation "the cat litter" in lines 1-2. Claim 16 recites the limitation "with compound" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referencing the at least one fluorescent compound recited in lines 1-2 of claim 16 . Claim 16 recites the limitation "the coated particulate material" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one fluorescent" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 19 , lines 1-2, the recitation of “wherein the coated cat litter is blended with dry absorbent material to make a blended cat litter” is simply an intended use of the coated cat litter recited in the claim (e.g., that the final coated cat litter product can be blended with other compositions to form other products) , or if the coated cat litter is , in fact a blended composition. For the purpose of examination, this recitation has been interpreted as intended use of the coated cat litter product. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kilkenny et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2007/0179079) (“Kilkenny”). Regarding claims 1-4 , Kilkenny discloses a composition which can be used in a cat litter in a solid form ( [0010]-[0011] ; [0044]; [0047]) and which can be preloaded onto an absorbent material ([0055] ; [0057] ). The absorbent material may include wood pulp ([0013] ; reading on claims 1, 4 ). The composition may include optical brighteners, such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate , which is a fluorescent compound ([0030]; synonymous with 4-(2H-Naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)-2-stilbenesulfonic Acid Sodium Salt , reading on claims 1-3 ). As the fluorescent compound identified in Kilkenny is the same as that defined in the instant specification and claims, it will inherently demonstrate “ cat attractant properties .” Claims 1 , 4 , 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tetrault et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2017/0359967) (“Tetrault”). Regarding claims 1 and 4 , Tetrault discloses superabsorbent polymer composition which may be used in an animal litter product ([0083]). The polymer composition may comprise cellulosic polymers , such as carboxymethylcellulose ([0025]-[0027]; [0031]; [0034]) . The polymer composition may be present on a core or substrate, such as fine granules of silica or clay to form a particulate material ([0084]; reading on claim s 1 and 4 ). Finally, the particulate material may include additives, such as fluorescent pigments ([0096]). As a fluorescent additive identified in Tetrault is the same as that defined in the instant specification as being a “cat attractant”, the fluorescent pigment of Tetrault will inherently demonstrate “ cat attractant properties .” Regarding claim 16 , Tetrault discloses superabsorbent polymer composition which may be used in an animal litter product ([0083]). The polymer composition may comprise cellulosic polymers ([0025]-[0027]; [0031]; [0034]) .The polymer composition may be present as a coating on a core or substrate, such as fine granules of silica or clay to form a particulate material ([0084]). Finally, the particulate material may include additives, such as fluorescent pigments ([0096]) and anti-clumping additives ([0094]; reading on coated particulate material not clumped together ) . Additives can be incorporated homogeneously with the coating composition ([0082]). Regarding claim 20 , Tetrault discloses that the core or substrate particulate material may be a nonabsorbent material ([0091]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 2, 3, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetrault et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2017/0359967) (“Tetrault”), as applied to claims 1 , 4 and 16 above, and further in view of Kilkenny et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2007/0179079) (“Kilkenny”). Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , Tetrault discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Tetrault discloses that coated particulate composition may comprise additives such as fluorescent pigments ([0096]; [0113]), the reference does not disclose the particular fluorescent pigments recited in claim s 2 and 3 . Kilkenny discloses a composition which can be used in a cat litter in a solid form ([0010]-[0013]; [0044]; [0047]) and which can be preloaded onto an absorbent material ([0013]; [0055]; [0057]). Kilkenny discloses the composition may include superabsorbent polymers as well, such as carboxymethyl cellulose and/or hydroxypropyl cellulose ([0013]). Kilkenny teaches that optical brighteners, such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate (a fluorescent compound) can be incorporated into the coating composition ([0030]; synonymous with 4-(2H-Naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)-2-stilbenesulfonic Acid Sodium Salt ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose a fluorescent compound such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate as the fluorescent pigment of Tetrault, as suggested by Kilkenny, doing so amounts to nothing more than the selection of a known fluorescent compound as a known additive type for an animal litter product. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in selecting this fluorescent compound as an additive for the polymer composition of modified Tetrault since both references disclose coating compositions include cellulosic superabsorbent polymers for coating particulate material for use as animal litter. Regarding claim 17 , Tetrault discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. The core or substrate may be silica or clay ([0084]). While Tetrault discloses that coated particulate composition may comprise additives such as fluorescent pigments ([0096]; [0113]), the reference does not disclose the particular fluorescent pigments recited in claim 17 . Kilkenny discloses a composition which can be used in a cat litter in a solid form ([0010]-[0013]; [0044]; [0047]) and which can be preloaded onto an absorbent material ([0013]; [0055]; [0057]). Kilkenny discloses the composition may include superabsorbent polymers as well, such as carboxymethyl cellulose and/or hydroxypropyl cellulose ([0013]). Kilkenny teaches that optical brighteners, such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate (a fluorescent compound) can be incorporated into the coating composition ([0030]; synonymous with 4-(2H-Naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)-2-stilbenesulfonic Acid Sodium Salt ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose a fluorescent compound such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate as the fluorescent pigment of Tetrault, as suggested by Kilkenny, doing so amounts to nothing more than the selection of a known fluorescent compound as a known additive type for an animal litter product. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in selecting this fluorescent compound as an additive for the polymer composition of modified Tetrault since both references disclose coating compositions include cellulosic superabsorbent polymers for coating particulate material for use as animal litter. Further , Tetrault discloses that the polymer coating composition may comprise a binder, such as carboxymethylcellylose ([0026]). Tetrault does not disclose, however, that the binder may hydroxypropyl cellulose. Kilkenny discloses a composition which can be used in a cat litter in a solid form ([0010]-[0013]; [0044]; [0047]) and which can be preloaded onto an absorbent material ([0013]; [0055]; [0057]). Kilkenny discloses the composition may include superabsorbent polymers as well and include polymers such as carboxymethyl cellulose and/or hydroxypropyl cellulose ([0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use hydroxypropyl cellulose rather than carboxymethylcellulose as the binder of modified Tetrault, as suggested by Kilkenny, since doing so amounts to nothing more than the selection of a known equivalent compound in a superabsorbent polymer composition for coating particulates used as animal litter. Regarding claim 18 , modified Tetrault discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Tetrault further discloses that the amount of binder may be from 1-20 percent by weight in the final composition, preferably from 5 to 10 percent by weight ([0023]). Additionally, Tetrault discloses that color altering additives/pigments can be added to the composition in a range of approximately 0.001 percent to 5 percent of the composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1974) . Regarding limitations recited in claim 19 which are directed to a manner of further using the coated cat litter product of claim 18 , it is noted that the intended use of a composition does not further limit the composition claim. Said limitations do not differentiate coated cat litter composition from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetrault et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2017/0359967) (“Tetrault”). Regarding claim s 9 , 10, 12, and 13 , Tetrault discloses a method of forming a superabsorbent polymer composition which may be used in an animal litter product ([0083]). The polymer composition may comprise cellulosic polymers ([0025]-[0027]; [0031]; [0034] ; claim 10 ). The polymer composition may be sprayed onto a core or substrate, such as fine granules of silica or clay , to form a coated particulate material ( [0050], [0084] ; claim 12, 13 ). The polymer composition used for the coating may also comprise a dditives, such as fluorescent pigments ([0096]) and anti-clumping additives ([0094]; reading on coated particulate material not clumped together ) . Additives can be incorporated homogeneously with the coating composition ([0082]). After coating, the particulate composition can be dried ([0079]). Tetrault does not explicitly disclose that the coating solution is “ slowly ” added to the core/substrate particles so as to “ lightly ” wet the particles, but does state that the solution may be applied using spraying ([0050]) and that the polymer composition should have sufficient wet adhesion to the intended substrate ([0049]) . The reference states that depending on the amount of polymer applied and the mixing process , various properties of the coated composition may be adjusted, such as morphology, hydrophilicity , or absorbency ([0050] ; [0079] ). The reference also states that through judicious selection of the type and quantity of additives, a suitable granulate is obtained ([0079]). Tetrault states that the inter-relationships can be determined for the composition through routine mixing tests ([0079]) . As the final properties of the coated particulate material, such as morphology, hydrophilicity , and absorbency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of coating material added and the speed of the coating process, the precise coating amount and speed of adding the coating composition to the particulate would have been considered a result effective variable s by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the “slow” addition of a coating material to “lightly” wet the particulate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the speed of addition of the polymer composition and the amount of the polymer composition added to the particulate substrate of Tetrault to obtain the desired properties of the final composition ( In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (C . C . P . A . 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . See In re Aller , 105 USPQ 223 (C.C.P.A 1955) . Claims 11, 14 , and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetrault et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2017/0359967) (“Tetrault”), as applied to claim s 9 , 10, 12, and 13 above, and further in view of Kilkenny et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2007/0179079) (“Kilkenny”). Regarding claim 14 , modified Tetrault discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. W hile Tetrault discloses that coated particulate composition may comprise additives such as fluorescent pigments ([0096] ; [0113] ), the reference does not disclose the particular fluorescent pigment s recited in claim 14 . Kilkenny discloses a composition which can be used in a cat litter in a solid form ([0010]-[001 3 ]; [0044]; [0047]) and which can be preloaded onto an absorbent material ( [0013]; [0055]; [0057]). Kilkenny discloses the composition may include superabsorbent polymers as well, such as carboxymethyl cellulose and/or hydroxypropyl cellulose ([0013]). Kilkenny teaches that optical brighteners, such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate (a fluorescent compound) can be incorporated into the coating composition ([0030]; synonymous with 4-(2H-Naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)-2-stilbenesulfonic Acid Sodium Salt ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose a fluorescent compound such as sodium 4-(2H-naphtho[1,2-d]triazol-2-yl)stilbene-2-sulphonate as the fluorescent pigment of Tetrault, as suggested by Kilkenny, doing so amounts to nothing more than the selection of a known fluorescent compound as a known additive type for an animal litter product. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in selecting this fluorescent compound as an additive for the polymer composition of modified Tetrault since both references disclose coating compositions include cellulosic superabsorbent polymers for coating particulate material for use as animal litter. Regarding claim s 11 and 15 , modified Tetrault discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Tetrault discloses that the amount of coating is approximately 0.2% to about 10% by weight of the core particulate material ([0089]; overlapping with a coating solution applied to solid particulate in a range of 1:3 to 1:30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (C.C.P.A. 1974) . Further, Tetrault does not disclose that the coating composition includes glycerin (reading on 0 wt. % glycerin). Tetrault also discloses that the polymer coating composition may comprise a binder, such as carboxymethylcellylose ([0026]), in an amount of 1 to 20% by weight of the coating composition ([0023]). Tetrault does not disclose, however, that the binder may hydroxypropyl cellulose. Kilkenny discloses a composition which can be used in a cat litter in a solid form ([0010]-[0013]; [0044]; [0047]) and which can be preloaded onto an absorbent material ([0013]; [0055]; [0057]). Kilkenny discloses the composition may include superabsorbent polymers as well and include polymers such as carboxymethyl cellulose and/or hydroxypropyl cellulose ([0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use hydroxypropyl cellulose rather than carboxymethylcellulose as the binder of modified Tetrault, as suggested by Kilkenny, since doing so amounts to nothing more than the selection of a known equivalent compound in a superabsorbent polymer composition for coating particulates used as animal litter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Several references cited in the PTO-892 were cited in a related foreign application (PCT/US2023/074395) . Applicant is reminded of the obligations of 37 CFR 1.56 and MPEP § 2001.06(a). A lthough claims 5-8 were not treated on their merits above, Tetrault discloses a method of forming a superabsorbent polymer composition which may be used in an animal litter product ([0083]). The polymer composition may comprise cellulosic polymers ([0025]-[0027]; [0031]; [0034]). The polymer composition may be sprayed onto a core or substrate, such as fine granules of silica or clay, to form a coated particulate material ([0050], [0084]). The polymer composition used for the coating may also comprise additives, such as fluorescent pigments ([0096]). Additives can be incorporated homogeneously with the coating composition ([0082]) or dry-blend ed with the particles ([0099]; [0116]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHERINE M ZALASKY MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7064 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00 AM to 5:30 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 JACOB BETIT can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4075 . 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. /KATHERINE ZALASKY MCDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221