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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024, 03/08/2024, 05/05/2024, 07/23/2024, 01/14/2025, and 08/25/2025 is/ are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 4, 9, and 11 are objected to for the following informalities: In Claim 4 , the phrase “wherein the handler perform the process” should be “wherein the handler perform s the process” In Claim 9 , the phrase “with and an independent positioning solution” should be “with and an independent positioning solution” In Claim 11 , the phrase “a corrections monitor configured to configured to” should be “a corrections monitor configured to configured to ” 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. Claims 1-2 and 11 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. Regarding Claim 1 , the claim recites the limitation “generate an integrity flag indicative of whether the GNSS corrections achieve a threshold safety based.” It is unclear what the threshold safety is based on or if “based” is a typo. For examination purposes the limitation is interpreted as “generate an integrity flag indicative of whether the GNSS corrections achieve a threshold safety.” Regarding Claim 1 , the claim recites the limitation “the converted GNSS corrections.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as referring to “the GNSS corrections” in Claim 1. Regarding Claim 1 , the claim recites the limitation “the GNSS receiver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “a GNSS receiver.” Regarding Claim 2 , the claim recites the limitation “the unique set of satellite observations.” It is unclear if there is one set of unique of satellite observations or multiple. Claim 1 recites a plurality of corrections monitors each with a unique set of satellite observations. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “the unique sets of satellite observations.” Regarding Claim 11 , the claim recites the limitation “the GNSS receiver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “a GNSS receiver.” 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. Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“Chapter 14 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS),” 2019, Stanford University GPS Lab) in view of Menzel (US 2020/0065172). Regarding Claim 1 , Stanford teaches: A system comprising: a corrections generator ([pg. 2]: “master station”; [pg. 3]: “WAAS Master Stations (WMSs)”; “Corrections Processor (CP)”; Fig. 14-2) configured to: receive a first set of satellite observations from a first set of reference stations ([pg. 2]: “take in the raw measurements”) ; and determine GNSS corrections and bounds associated with the GNSS corrections using the first set of satellite observations ([pg. 2]: “generate corrections”; “sends confidence bounds”; [pg. 3]: “The CP performs an initial screening of the data to identify and remove outliers. The resulting output is fed into filters that estimate the receiver and satellite Inter-Frequency Biases (IFBs) [Komjathy, 2002], the WRE clock offsets, the satellite orbital locations, and the satellite clock offsets [Bertiger, 1997].” ) ; a plurality of corrections monitors ([pg. 3]: “Safety Processor (SP)”; [pgs. 3-4]: disclosing several monitors withing the Safety Processor; Fig. 14-2) , each corrections monitor of the plurality of corrections monitors configured to: receive a unique set of satellite observations from a set of reference stations ([pg. 3-4, 10]: disclosing receiving data from the various WAAS Reference Stations (WRSs) ) ; receive the GNSS corrections from the corrections generator ([pg. 3]: “These are then passed along to the SP for evaluation.”) ; and generate an integrity flag indicative of whether the GNSS corrections achieve a threshold safety based ([pg. 3]: “The SP is responsible for ensuring the safety of the WAAS output.”; [pg. 4]: “If there is a problem, the RDM may increase the corresponding UDRE and GIVE values or it may flag the satellite as unsafe to use.” ) ; a corrections combiner … wherein the corrections combiner is configured to match the plurality of integrity flags to the converted GNSS corrections ([pg. 3]: “The SP is responsible for ensuring the safety of the WAAS output.”; [pg. 4]: “The RDM uses smoothed L1 measurements and bounds from the CNMP monitor to determine whether corrections and bounds from the prior monitors combine as expected to bound the fully corrected single frequency measurements.”) ; and a positioning engine configured to determine a positioning solution of the GNSS receiver using the converted GNSS corrections … ([pg. 2]: “corrected position solution”; [pg. 4]: “User Position Monitor”) . Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Menzel teaches: the corrections combiner operating in at least an ASIL B certified environment (Menzel [0024]: “the second electronic computing device is preferably designed according to one of the safety integrity levels ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C and ASIL D, particularly preferably ASIL B.”) , and wherein each integrity flag meets or exceeds an ASIL A safety rating, wherein the GNSS corrections meet or exceed an ASIL B safety rating after being matched to the plurality of integrity flags by the corrections combiner (Menzel [0024]: “the second electronic computing device is preferably designed according to one of the safety integrity levels ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C and ASIL D, particularly preferably ASIL B.”; [0044]: “the plausibility of the outgoing and incoming signals of said vehicle applications being checked by a checking device 21 in the second electronic computing device 2 and being checked for formal correctness.”) . In that Stanford teaches that the system is configured to evaluate and combine corrections, bounds, and flags, and to adjust/match them for safety (e.g., pgs. 3-4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford and configure the corrections combiner to operate in at least an ASIL B certified environment, configure the integrity flags to meet or exceed an ASIL A safety rating, and configure the GNSS corrections to meet or exceed an ASIL B safety rating, as taught by Menzel. Modifying Stanford to achieve a specific ASIL safety rating is beneficial for improving system safety and enabling applications such as autonomous driving. Regarding Claim 2 , Stanford teaches: the system further comprising a reference station observation monitor configured to monitor at least one of the first set of satellite observations or the unique set of satellite observations ([pg. 10]: “The CNMP algorithms process the receiver measurements from each of three receivers at the 38 WRSs”) . Regarding Claim 3 , Stanford teaches: wherein each corrections monitor of the plurality of corrections monitors and the reference station observation monitor is configured to operate free from interference ([pg. 10]: “The CNMP algorithms process the receiver measurements from each of three receivers at the 38 WRSs”) . Regarding Claim 7 , Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Menzel teaches: wherein the corrections generator is in support of quality managed (QM) safety (Menzel [0010]: “the first electronic computing device can be designed, for example, as substantially non-safety-relevant according to an ASIL QM (quality management) classification”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford and configure the corrections generator to support quality managed (QM) safety, as taught by Menzel. The system of Stanford is already configured to comply with specific safety requirements ([pgs. 3-4]). Modifying Stanford to comply with QM safety comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and is beneficial for improving system safety and enabling applications such as autonomous driving. Regarding Claim 8 , Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Menzel teaches: wherein each corrections monitor of the plurality of corrections monitors is configured to be in support of at least ASIL A safety (Menzel [0024]: “the second electronic computing device is preferably designed according to one of the safety integrity levels ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C and ASIL D, particularly preferably ASIL B.”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford and configure the correction monitors to support ASIL A safety, as taught by Menzel. The system of Stanford is already configured to comply with specific safety requirements ([pgs. 3-4]). Modifying Stanford to comply with ASIL A safety comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and is beneficial for improving system safety and enabling applications such as autonomous driving. Regarding Claim 10 , Stanford teaches: wherein the plurality of corrections monitors comprise two corrections monitors each operating on a processor separate from a processor the corrections generator operates on ([pg. 3]: “Corrections Processor (CP) and a Safety Processor (SP)”; Fig. 14-2) . Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“Chapter 14 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS),” 2019, Stanford University GPS Lab) in view of Menzel (US 2020/0065172), as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Engler (Engler et al., “Exokernel: An Operating System Architecture for Application-Level Resource Management,” 1995). Regarding Claim 4 , Stanford teaches: … a manager configured to network the each corrections monitor of the plurality of corrections monitors or the reference station observation monitor to an endpoint ([pg. 3]: “Corrections Processor (CP)”) ; and a handler configured to perform a process of the each corrections monitor of the plurality of corrections monitors and the reference station observation monitor … ([pg. 3]: “ Safety Processor (SP)”; [pgs. 3-4]: disclosing various monitors such as the CNMP monitor and CCC monitor; Fig. 14-2 showing the monitors as separate processes) . Stanford does not explicitly teach the managers and handlers are comprised in the corrections monitors or that the handlers perform the process in a separate memory region from the manager. Engler teaches the concept of managers and handlers, and teaches the handlers performing processes in separate memory regions (Engler [pg. 1]: “interprocess communication (IPC)”; [pg. 3]: “The challenge for an exokernel is to give library operating systems maximum freedom in managing physical resources while protecting them from each other; a programming error in one library operating system should not affect another library operating system. To achieve this goal, an exokernel separates protection from management through a low-level interface.”) . In that Stanford generally teaches the idea of managers and handlers and teaches implementing the monitors as separate processes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford with the teachings on Engler and comprise the manager and handlers in the corrections monitors and to perform the handler processes in separate memory regions. The concepts of managers and handlers and using separate memory regions are considered ordinary and well-known in computing systems. For example, the concepts are used in inter-process communication (IPC), operating systems, and distributed systems. Modifying Stanford to specifically implement the managers and handlers within the corrections monitors and to use separate memory regions comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“Chapter 14 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS),” 2019, Stanford University GPS Lab) in view of Menzel (US 2020/0065172) and Engler (Engler et al., “Exokernel: An Operating System Architecture for Application-Level Resource Management,” 1995), as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Mitchell (Mitchell et al., “Using One-Sided RDMA Reads to Build a Fast, CPU-Efficient Key-Value Store,” 2013). Regarding Claim 5 , Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Mitchell teaches: wherein the manager and handler both access a shared memory region (Mitchell [p. 105]: “shared environment”) , wherein data to be shared between the manager and the handler in the shared memory region comprises a payload, a payload size, an operation to be performed on the payload, and a fingerprint of the payload; wherein the handler reads the fingerprint of the payload before performing the operation on the payload (Mitchell [p. 104]: “Send/Recv Verbs”; “checksummed”; [p. 106]: “both the key K and value V are strings of arbitrary length”; [p. 110]: “we vary the size of the value string from 16 to 4096 bytes”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford and let the manager and handler access shared memory and to share data including a payload, a payload size, an operation to be performed on the payload, and a fingerprint of the payload, as taught by Engler. Managers and handlers accessing shared memory, and including payload, operations, and fingerprints with data, are considered ordinary and well-known in computing systems. For example, the concepts are used in inter-process communication (IPC), operating systems, and distributed systems. Modifying Stanford to with the teachings of Mitchell comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 6 , Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Mitchell teaches: the system further comprising a sync block that controls access to the shared memory region for the manager and the handler (Engler [pg. 1]: “interprocess communication (IPC)”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford and use a sync block to controls access to the shared memory region, as taught by Mitchell. Sync blocks are considered ordinary and well-known in computing systems. For example, the concepts are used in inter-process communication (IPC) to coordinate memory access. Modifying Stanford to with the teachings of Mitchell comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claims 11, 15, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“Chapter 14 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS),” 2019, Stanford University GPS Lab) in view of Engler (Engler et al., “Exokernel: An Operating System Architecture for Application-Level Resource Management,” 1995). Regarding Claim 11 , Stanford teaches: A system comprising: a corrections generator ([pg. 2]: “master station”; [pg. 3]: “WAAS Master Stations (WMSs)”; “Corrections Processor (CP)”; Fig. 14-2) configured to: receive a first set of satellite observations from a first set of reference stations ([pg. 2]: “take in the raw measurements”) ; and determine GNSS corrections and bounds associated with the GNSS corrections using the first set of satellite observations ([pg. 2]: “generate corrections”; “sends confidence bounds”; [pg. 3]: “The CP performs an initial screening of the data to identify and remove outliers. The resulting output is fed into filters that estimate the receiver and satellite Inter-Frequency Biases (IFBs) [Komjathy, 2002], the WRE clock offsets, the satellite orbital locations, and the satellite clock offsets [Bertiger, 1997].” ) ; a corrections monitor ([pg. 3]: “ Safety Processor (SP)”; [pgs. 3-4]: disclosing several monitors withing the Safety Processor; Fig. 14-2) configured to configured to: receive a second set of satellite observations from a set of reference stations ([pg. 3-4, 10]: disclosing receiving data from the various WAAS Reference Stations (WRSs) ) ; receive the GNSS corrections from the corrections generator ([pg. 3]: “These are then passed along to the SP for evaluation.” ) ; generate an integrity flag indicative of whether the GNSS corrections achieve a threshold safety based on a residual calculated between the second set of satellite observations and the GNSS corrections ([pg. 3]: “The SP is responsible for ensuring the safety of the WAAS output.”; [pg. 4]: “If there is a problem, the RDM may increase the corresponding UDRE and GIVE values or it may flag the satellite as unsafe to use.”; [p. 11]: “residual error”) ; a positioning engine configured to determine a positioning solution of the GNSS receiver using the GNSS corrections ([pg. 2]: “corrected position solution”; [pg. 4]: “User Position Monitor” ) ; … a manager and a handler, wherein the handler operates free from interference from the manager ([pg. 3]: “Corrections Processor (CP) and a Safety Processor (SP)”; [pgs. 3-4] and Fig. 14-2 showing the CP and SP as separate processes) . Stanford does not explicitly teach the managers and handlers are comprised in the corrections monitor. Engler teaches the concept of managers and handlers (Engler [pg. 1]: “interprocess communication (IPC)”; [pg. 3]: “The challenge for an exokernel is to give library operating systems maximum freedom in managing physical resources while protecting them from each other; a programming error in one library operating system should not affect another library operating system. To achieve this goal, an exokernel separates protection from management through a low-level interface.”) . In that Stanford generally teaches the idea of managers and handlers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanford with the teachings of Engler and comprise the manager and handlers in the corrections monitor. The concepts of managers and handlers are considered ordinary and well-known in computing systems. For example, the concepts are used in inter-process communication (IPC), operating systems, and distributed systems. Modifying Stanford to specifically implement the managers and handlers within the corrections monitor comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 15 , Stanford teaches: … a manager configured to network the corrections monitor to an endpoint ([pg. 3]: “Corrections Processor (CP)”) ; and a handler configured to generate the integrity flag … ([pgs. 3-4]: “Safety Processor (SP)”) . Stanford does not explicitly teach the managers and handlers are comprised in the corrections monitor or that the handlers perform the process in a separate memory region of a processor from the manager. Engler teaches the concept of managers and handlers, and teaches the handlers performing processes in separate memory regions (Engler [pg. 1]: “interprocess communication (IPC)”; [pg. 3]) . The rationale to modify Stanford with the teachings of Engler would persist from Claim 4 above. Regarding Claim 18 , Stanford teaches: wherein the corrections generator comprises a corrections generator manager and a corrections generator handler, wherein the corrections generator manager and the corrections generator handler are not configured to be free from interference ([Fig. 14-2]: showing separate processes within the CP) . Regarding Claim 19 , Stanford teaches: the system further comprising a reference station observation preprocessor configured to detect outliers in the first set of satellite observations or the second set of satellite observations ([pg. 3]: “The CP performs an initial screening of the data to identify and remove outliers.”; [pg. 10]: “The CNMP algorithms process the receiver measurements from each of three receivers at the 38 WRSs”) . Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Engler teaches: wherein the reference station observation preprocessor comprises a preprocessor manager and a preprocessor handler that are configured to be free from interference (Engler [pg. 1]: “interprocess communication”; [pg. 3]: “Exokernel design”) . The rationale to modify Stanford with the teachings of Engler would persist from Claim 4 above. Regarding Claim 20 , Stanford teaches: wherein the corrections generator operates on a first processor and the corrections monitor operates on a second processor separate from the first processor ([pg. 3]: “Corrections Processor (CP) and a Safety Processor (SP)”; Fig. 14-2) . Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“Chapter 14 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS),” 2019, Stanford University GPS Lab) in view of Engler (Engler et al., “Exokernel: An Operating System Architecture for Application-Level Resource Management,” 1995), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Menzel (US 2020/0065172). Regarding Claim 12 , Stanford teaches: the system further comprising a second corrections monitor configured to generate a second integrity flag indicative of whether the GNSS corrections achieve the threshold safety based on a residual calculated between a third set of satellite observations and the GNSS corrections ([pg. 3]: “ Safety Processor (SP)”; [pgs. 3-4]: disclosing several monitors withing the Safety Processor; Fig. 14-2; [pg. 3]: “The SP is responsible for ensuring the safety of the WAAS output.”; “ three parallel threads”; [pg. 4]: “If there is a problem, the RDM may increase the corresponding UDRE and GIVE values or it may flag the satellite as unsafe to use.”) ; and a corrections combiner … ([pgs. 3-4]) wherein the corrections combiner is configured to: convert the GNSS corrections and the bounds based on a line-of-sight vector between a GNSS receiver and satellites associated with the GNSS corrections ([pg. 10]: “These ionospheric corrections and GIVEs are then combined with the satellite corrections and the UDREs to determine if the total L1 correction on each line of sight between the reference stations and the satellites are properly bounded by the combination of the UDRE and GIVE terms”) ; and match the integrity flag and the second integrity flag to the converted GNSS corrections ([pg. 3]: “The SP is responsible for ensuring the safety of the WAAS output.”; [pg. 4]: “The RDM uses smoothed L1 measurements and bounds from the CNMP monitor to determine whether corrections and bounds from the prior monitors combine as expected to bound the fully corrected single frequency measurements) . Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Menzel teaches: the corrections combiner operating in at least an ASIL B certified environment (Menzel [0024]: “the second electronic computing device is preferably designed according to one of the safety integrity levels ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C and ASIL D, particularly preferably ASIL B.”) . The rationale to modify Stanford with the teachings of Menzel would persist from Claim 1. Regarding Claim 13 , Stanford teaches: wherein the second set of satellite observations and the third set of satellite observations are distinct ([pg. 3]: “38 WAAS Reference Stations (WRSs)”; “parallel threads”) . Regarding Claim 14 , Stanford teaches: wherein the integrity flag and the second integrity flag each meets or exceeds an ASIL A safety rating, wherein the GNSS corrections meet or exceed an ASIL B safety rating after being matched to the plurality of integrity flags by the corrections combiner (Menzel [0024]: “the second electronic computing device is preferably designed according to one of the safety integrity levels ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C and ASIL D, particularly preferably ASIL B.”; [0044]: “the plausibility of the outgoing and incoming signals of said vehicle applications being checked by a checking device 21 in the second electronic computing device 2 and being checked for formal correctness.”) .. The rationale to modify Stanford with the teachings of Menzel would persist from Claim 1. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“Chapter 14 Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS),” 2019, Stanford University GPS Lab) in view of Engler (Engler et al., “Exokernel: An Operating System Architecture for Application-Level Resource Management,” 1995), as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Mitchell (Mitchell et al., “Using One-Sided RDMA Reads to Build a Fast, CPU-Efficient Key-Value Store,” 2013). Regarding Claim 16 , Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Mitchell teaches: wherein the manager and handler both access a shared memory region, wherein data to be shared between the manager and the handler in the shared memory region comprises a payload comprising the GNSS corrections and the second set of satellite observations, a payload size, an operation to be performed on the payload, and a fingerprint of the payload; wherein the handler verifies the payload based on the fingerprint of the payload generating the integrity flag (Mitchell [p. 104]: “Send/Recv Verbs”; “checksummed”; [p. 105]: “shared environment”; [p. 106]: “both the key K and value V are strings of arbitrary length”; [p. 110]: “we vary the size of the value string from 16 to 4096 bytes”) . The rationale to modify Stanford with the teachings of Mitchell would persist from Claim 5. Regarding Claim 17 , Stanford does not explicitly teach – but Mitchell teaches: the system further comprising a sync block that controls access to the shared memory region for the manager and the handler (Engler [pg. 1]: “interprocess communication (IPC)”) . The rationale to modify Stanford with the teachings of Mitchell would persist from Claim 6. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is 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. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 9 requires the positioning solution achieving ASIL D safety by combining the positioning solution determined using the positioning engine with an independent positioning solution derived from a positioning sensor that is distinct from the GNSS receiver. Stanford generally teaches the concept of positioning solutions meeting safety criteria ([pgs. 3-4]). Menzel teaches a positioning system that may be designed to achieve ASIL D safety. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest the specific process of combining a positioning solution determined using a positioning engine with a positioning solution derived from a positioning sensor to achieve ASIL D safety. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0170 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM . 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 William J. Kelleher can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7753 . 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. /NOAH YI MIN ZHU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648