DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to application filed on 12/6/2023. Claims 1 – 20 are pending. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of mental activities without significantly more. Claim 1: Regarding claim 1, the limitations “ generating, … an event hierarchy by organizing the identified events and identified event triggers into the event hierarchy of N levels denoted as levels 1, ..., N wherein N is at least 2, said event hierarchy comprising event nodes and event edges, each event edge connecting two event nodes disposed at successive levels of the N levels, the event nodes of level N being leaf nodes, each leaf node comprising program code whose execution performs one event of the identified events, the event nodes of levels 1, ..., N-1 being trigger nodes encompassing the identified event triggers and respectively triggering event nodes 2, ..., N; ”, “ tagging, … each event node satisfying criteria involving a frequency of occurrence of the events directly or indirectly invoked by each event node; ” and “generating,… an event message having a header portion and a body portion, the body portion comprising attributes of the plurality of events, the header portion comprising an identification of all tagged event nodes; ” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally create a tree/hierarchy of events based a log, tag nodes based on frequency of occurrence and alert relevant subscribers . Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “ performing,… a dynamic scan of log data generated from multiple executions of a software program that executes events, said dynamic scan identifying a plurality of events that occurred and identifying event triggers that invoked the identified events or invoked other event triggers; ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . The additional element “ sending,… the header portion, but not the body portion, of the event message to all event subscribers who are subscribed to at least one event of the plurality of events . ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “ by one or more processors of a computer system ” and “by the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 2 : Regarding claim 2, the limitation “ performing, … , a static scan of the software program, wherein the static scan identifies parameters whose value may be changed in accordance with events, and wherein the parameters are variables in the software program ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , See MPEP 2106.05(g) . N or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because t he additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 3 : Regarding claim 3 , The additional element “ generating, … a parameter hierarchy by organizing the identified parameters into the parameter hierarchy of M levels denoted as levels 1, ..., M wherein M is at least 2, said parameter hierarchy comprising parameter nodes and parameter edges, each parameter edge connecting two parameter nodes disposed at successive levels of the M levels, the parameter nodes of level M being leaf nodes, each leaf node encompassing one parameter of the identified parameters, each parameter node of level 1, ..., M-1 being an aggregation node respectively encompassing all parameter nodes at level 2, ..., M to which each parameter node is connected by a parameter edge. ” merely further limits the “ wherein the static scan identifies parameters whose value may be changed in accordance with events ” limitation of claim 2 and merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , See MPEP 2106.05(g) . N or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because the additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 4 : Regarding claim 4 , The additional element “ mapping, … the event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameter nodes of the parameter hierarchy . ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 5 : Regarding claim 5 , the limitation “ mapping, … using the mapping of the event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameters in the parameter hierarchy, the tagged nodes of the event hierarchy to respective event categories within an industrial data structure, each event category encompassing at least one category variable identified in the industrial data structure ” merely further limits the “mapping,… the event notes of the event hierarchy to parameter nodes of the parameter hierarchy” generated in claim 4 , thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 . N or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because the additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 6 : Regarding claim 6 , the limitation “ using mapped event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameters in the parameter hierarchy to identify a specific parameter in the parameter hierarchy to which a tagged node of the event hierarchy is mapped; and after the specific parameter in the parameter hierarchy is identified, using similarity analysis to match the specific parameter to an event category in the industrial data structure ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 7 : Regarding claim 7 , the limitation “ wherein a first trigger node of the event hierarchy is a parent node to a plurality of leaf nodes of the event hierarchy, wherein said tagging results in each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes being tagged and the first trigger node not being tagged, wherein said mapping the tagged nodes results in the first trigger node being mapped to a first event category in the industrial data structure and each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes not being mapped to any event category in the industrial data structure, and wherein the method comprises after said mapping the tagged event nodes and before said sending the event message: untagging each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes; tagging the first trigger node; classifying each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes as a metadata node; and inserting each metadata node into the header portion of the event message. ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Claim 8 : Regarding claim 8 , the limitation “ wherein said mapping the event nodes results in one trigger node of the event hierarchy being mapped to at least one parameter node identified by the parameter hierarchy, wherein said mapping tagged nodes results in the one trigger node being mapped to one event category in the industrial data structure, wherein the at least one parameter node comprises at least one parameter, wherein the one event category encompasses one or more category variables not encompassing the at least one parameter, and wherein the method further comprises: adding, by the one or more processors, the one or more category variables to the at least one parameter as leaf nodes aggregated in the parameter hierarchy; and adding, by the one or more processors, events corresponding to the one or more category variables as leaf nodes triggered by the one trigger node in the event hierarchy ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 9 : Regarding claim 9 , the limitations “ generating, … an event hierarchy by organizing the identified events and identified event triggers into the event hierarchy of N levels denoted as levels 1, ..., N wherein N is at least 2, said event hierarchy comprising event nodes and event edges, each event edge connecting two event nodes disposed at successive levels of the N levels, the event nodes of level N being leaf nodes, each leaf node comprising program code whose execution performs one event of the identified events, the event nodes of levels 1, ..., N-1 being trigger nodes encompassing the identified event triggers and respectively triggering event nodes 2, ..., N; ”, “ tagging, … each event node satisfying criteria involving a frequency of occurrence of the events directly or indirectly invoked by each event node; ” and “generating,… an event message having a header portion and a body portion, the body portion comprising attributes of the plurality of events, the header portion comprising an identification of all tagged event nodes; ” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally create a tree/hierarchy of events based a log, tag nodes based on frequency of occurrence and alert relevant subscribers . Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “ performing,… a dynamic scan of log data generated from multiple executions of a software program that executes events, said dynamic scan identifying a plurality of events that occurred and identifying event triggers that invoked the identified events or invoked other event triggers; ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . The additional element “ sending,… the header portion, but not the body portion, of the event message to all event subscribers who are subscribed to at least one event of the plurality of events . ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “ A computer program product, comprising one or more computer readable hardware storage devices having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code containing instructions executable by one or more processors of a computer system to implement a method for processing events in an event-driven architecture, ”, “ by one or more processors of a computer system ” and “by the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 10 : Regarding claim 10 , the limitation “ performing, by the one or more processors, a static scan of the software program, wherein the static scan identifies parameters whose value may be changed in accordance with events, and wherein the parameters are variables in the software program ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B . See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Claim 11 : Regarding claim 11 , The additional element “ generating, by the one or more processors, a parameter hierarchy by organizing the identified parameters into the parameter hierarchy of M levels denoted as levels 1, ..., M wherein M is at least 2, said parameter hierarchy comprising parameter nodes and parameter edges, each parameter edge connecting two parameter nodes disposed at successive levels of the M levels, the parameter nodes of level M being leaf nodes, each leaf node encompassing one parameter of the identified parameters, each parameter node of level 1, ..., M-1 being an aggregation node respectively encompassing all parameter nodes at level 2, ..., M to which each parameter node is connected by a parameter edge. ” merely further limits the “ wherein the static scan identifies parameters whose value may be changed in accordance with events ” limitation of claim 2 and merely recite s insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B . See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Claim 12 : Regarding claim 12 , The additional element “ mapping, … the event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameter nodes of the parameter hierarchy . ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 13 : Regarding claim 13 , the limitation “ mapping, … using the mapping of the event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameters in the parameter hierarchy, the tagged nodes of the event hierarchy to respective event categories within an industrial data structure, each event category encompassing at least one category variable identified in the industrial data structure ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , See MPEP 2106.05(g) . N or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because the additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 14 : Regarding claim 14 , the limitation “ using mapped event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameters in the parameter hierarchy to identify a specific parameter in the parameter hierarchy to which a tagged node of the event hierarchy is mapped; and after the specific parameter in the parameter hierarchy is identified, using similarity analysis to match the specific parameter to an event category in the industrial data structure ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 15 : Regarding claim 15 , the limitation “ wherein a first trigger node of the event hierarchy is a parent node to a plurality of leaf nodes of the event hierarchy, wherein said tagging results in each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes being tagged and the first trigger node not being tagged, wherein said mapping the tagged nodes results in the first trigger node being mapped to a first event category in the industrial data structure and each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes not being mapped to any event category in the industrial data structure, and wherein the method comprises after said mapping the tagged event nodes and before said sending the event message: untagging each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes; tagging the first trigger node; classifying each leaf node of the plurality of leaf nodes as a metadata node; and inserting each metadata node into the header portion of the event message. ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Claim 16 : Regarding claim 16 , the limitation “ wherein said mapping the event nodes results in one trigger node of the event hierarchy being mapped to at least one parameter node identified by the parameter hierarchy, wherein said mapping tagged nodes results in the one trigger node being mapped to one event category in the industrial data structure, wherein the at least one parameter node comprises at least one parameter, wherein the one event category encompasses one or more category variables not encompassing the at least one parameter, and wherein the method further comprises: adding, by the one or more processors, the one or more category variables to the at least one parameter as leaf nodes aggregated in the parameter hierarchy; and adding, by the one or more processors, events corresponding to the one or more category variables as leaf nodes triggered by the one trigger node in the event hierarchy ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 17 : Regarding claim 17 , the limitations “ generating, … an event hierarchy by organizing the identified events and identified event triggers into the event hierarchy of N levels denoted as levels 1, ..., N wherein N is at least 2, said event hierarchy comprising event nodes and event edges, each event edge connecting two event nodes disposed at successive levels of the N levels, the event nodes of level N being leaf nodes, each leaf node comprising program code whose execution performs one event of the identified events, the event nodes of levels 1, ..., N-1 being trigger nodes encompassing the identified event triggers and respectively triggering event nodes 2, ..., N; ”, “ tagging, … each event node satisfying criteria involving a frequency of occurrence of the events directly or indirectly invoked by each event node; ” and “generating,… an event message having a header portion and a body portion, the body portion comprising attributes of the plurality of events, the header portion comprising an identification of all tagged event nodes; ” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally create a tree/hierarchy of events based a log, tag nodes based on frequency of occurrence and alert relevant subscribers . Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “ performing,… a dynamic scan of log data generated from multiple executions of a software program that executes events, said dynamic scan identifying a plurality of events that occurred and identifying event triggers that invoked the identified events or invoked other event triggers; ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . The additional element “ sending,… the header portion, but not the body portion, of the event message to all event subscribers who are subscribed to at least one event of the plurality of events . ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “ A computer system, comprising one or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more computer readable hardware storage devices, said one or more hardware storage devices containing program code executable by the one or more processors via the one or more memories to implement a method for processing events in an event-driven architecture ”, “ by one or more processors of a computer system ” and “by the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 1 8 : Regarding claim 1 8 , the limitation “ performing, by the one or more processors, a static scan of the software program, wherein the static scan identifies parameters whose value may be changed in accordance with events, and wherein the parameters are variables in the software program ” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B . See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Claim 1 9 : Regarding claim 1 9 , The additional element “ generating, by the one or more processors, a parameter hierarchy by organizing the identified parameters into the parameter hierarchy of M levels denoted as levels 1, ..., M wherein M is at least 2, said parameter hierarchy comprising parameter nodes and parameter edges, each parameter edge connecting two parameter nodes disposed at successive levels of the M levels, the parameter nodes of level M being leaf nodes, each leaf node encompassing one parameter of the identified parameters, each parameter node of level 1, ..., M-1 being an aggregation node respectively encompassing all parameter nodes at level 2, ..., M to which each parameter node is connected by a parameter edge. ” merely further limits the “ wherein the static scan identifies parameters whose value may be changed in accordance with events ” limitation of claim 2 and merely recite s insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2 , nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B . See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Claim 20 : Regarding claim 20 , The additional element “ mapping, … the event nodes of the event hierarchy to parameter nodes of the parameter hierarchy . ” merely recite s mental activities capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. The additional element “ by the one or more processors, ” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leng (US 20240176593) teaches “ The system allows developers to define business requirements into flow definition files, includes an event engine to handle and execute the logic by dynamically correlating the definition files and API protocol specifications. The system incorporates plugins for each protocol to process the specification and communicate with other components. When acting as event handler for specific process flow, the system decodes the packets, associates the data with corresponding event handler and application flow, converts into the format per conversion rules defined in the definition files, executes the actions and transitions defined in the process flow per the application's business requirements. The system enables developers or business analysts develop application via visualized user interface, without the need of writing codes in programming languages or compiling into binary executable files. ”; Pham (US 20230315603) teaches “ An example event log processing method includes receiving an event log comprising a plurality of event records describing events that have occurred on each of one or more computer systems over a period of time; converting the event log into a graph, comprising: normalizing the plurality of event records, including anonymizing a unique identifier value in each event record and replacing a variable value in each event record with a predetermined value; representing each normalized event record as one or more nodes in the graph; and generating a plurality of event clusters, wherein each event cluster includes an aggregated group of nodes and is generated based on common attributes of and hierarchical relationships between the normalized event records represented by the nodes in the aggregated group. ” Casey et al (US 20220094606) teaches “ a data processing engine processes log data of a CDN node according to a model to identify an issue. An issue indication is provided to a solution generation engine, which generates a set of solutions to automatically resolve the issue. The set of solutions is provided to a solution implementation engine, which iteratively implements solutions to resolve the issue using solution implementation information associated with a given solution. Thus, the data processing engine need not have knowledge regarding the specific hardware and/or software used within the CDN. Similarly, the solution generation engine need not have knowledge of the structure of the CDN and/or configuration of devices associated with the identified issue, such that the solution implementation engine provides a layer of abstraction between a solution and the implementation-specific details used to implement the solution within the CDN. ” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7756 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM . 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 April Blair can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712701014 . 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. /CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196