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. DETAILED ACTION Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fluid conveying element” in claims 1 and 14; “warming element” in claims 1 and 14; “deflection element” in claim 6 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are: (A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co ., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp. , 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States , 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products , 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co. , 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co. , 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc. , 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc. , 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States , 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc. , 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987). (C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc. , 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. , 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co. , 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co. , 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1 , 8-11, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (US 2275772 A), hereinafter Koch, in view of Dai ( CN 201373479 Y ), hereinafter Dai . Regarding claim s 1 and 10 , Koch discloses a food warming system comprising: a fluid conveying element (“ the space 15 behind the back wall 7 constitutes a hot air and fume escape passage ” page 1, column 1, line 48) configured to connect to a cooking exhaust vent in order to receive heated exhaust gasses (“ The lower end portions of the side walls 5 and the cabinet bottom 9 cooperate in forming a hood 18 which receives the ascending fumes and hot air and directs them into the escape passage 15” page 1, column 1, line 52) ; a fan positioned in or adjacent to the fluid conveying element, the fan configured to move the heated exhaust gasses through the fluid conveying element (“ To aid in discharging the ascending fumes and hot air, a motor-driven fan 19 may be provided if desired ” page 1, column 2, line 9) ; a warming element , the warming element is configured to connect to the fluid conveying element such that the heated exhaust gasses warm the warming element and the heated exhaust gasses become cooled exhaust gasses (“ The bottom 9 and the back wall 7 of course become heated, and as the shelves 11 and 11 a are secured to these parts, said shelves also become heated to quite an extent. Therefore, the cabinet may be effectively used to keep food warm before serving ” page 1, column 2, line 1) ; a second fluid conveying element, the second fluid conveying element configured to allow the cooled exhaust gasses move for exhaustion (“an appropriate vent flue 17” page 1, column 1, line 51) ; wherein the warming element includes a chamber (“suitable doors (not shown) are employed at the cabinet front” page 1, column 2, line 7) . Koch does not disclose : the warming element positioned remote from the cooking exhaust vent, the warming element is configured to receive the heated exhaust gasses; an outlet on the warming element configured to connect to the second fluid conveying element, the second fluid conveying element configured to allow the cooled exhaust gasses move back to the cooking exhaust vent ; wherein the warming element includes an inlet and an outlet, the inlet configured to connect to the fluid conveying element and the outlet configured to connect to the second fluid conveying element. However, Dai teaches : the warming element ( 3 ) positioned remote from the cooking exhaust vent ( 1 ), the warming element is configured to receive the heated gasses (Via 3 9 ) ; an outlet on the warming element (3) configured to connect to the second fluid conveying element, the second fluid conveying element configured to allow the cooled gasses move back to the cooking exhaust vent (Figure 3) ; wherein the warming element includes an inlet and an outlet, the inlet configured to connect to the fluid conveying element and the outlet configured to connect to the second fluid conveying element (Figure 3). In view of Dai ’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the warming element positioned remote from the cooking exhaust vent as is taught in Dai , in the system disclosed by Koch because a remote warming element will simplify access to the warming element. For instance, Dai teaches a warming element which would not require the user to reach above the cooktop. Regarding claim 8, Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the system further comprises a cooking element positioned below the exhaust vent and the exhaust vent comprises a vent hood with the fluid conveying element connected to the vent hood ( “a stove 14” page 1, column 1, line 48) . Regarding claim 9 , Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the fan is removable from the fluid conveying element so that blades of the fan can be exposed for cleaning (“I have shown such a fan mounted on an appropriate bracket 20 and accessible through an opening 21 in the upper end of the back wall 7, said opening being normally closed by a suitable plate 22” page 1, column 2, line 11). Regarding claim 11 , Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the warming element includes one or more dividers which separate one or more food items placed on the warming element from other food items placed on the warming element (“shelves 11 and 11a” page 1, column 2, line 2). Regarding claim s 14 and 18 , Koch discloses a method of warming food comprising: moving heated exhaust gasses with a fan (“ To aid in discharging the ascending fumes and hot air, a motor-driven fan 19 may be provided if desired ” page 1, column 2, line 9) from a cooking exhaust vent via a fluid conveying element to a warming element (“ The lower end portions of the side walls 5 and the cabinet bottom 9 cooperate in forming a hood 18 which receives the ascending fumes and hot air and directs them into the escape passage 15” page 1, column 1, line 52) ; heating the warming element with the heated exhaust gasses by introducing the heated exhaust gasses to a chamber of the warming element to thereby allow the warming element to extract heat from the heated exhaust gasses such that the heated exhaust gasses become cooled exhaust gasses (“ The bottom 9 and the back wall 7 of course become heated, and as the shelves 11 and 11 a are secured to these parts, said shelves also become heated to quite an extent. Therefore, the cabinet may be effectively used to keep food warm before serving ” page 1, column 2, line 1) ; exhausting the cooled exhaust gases (“an appropriate vent flue 17” page 1, column 1, line 51) . Koch does not disclose: introducing the heated exhaust gasses into the chamber of the warming element; returning the cooled exhaust gasses to the exhaust vent ; wherein the fluid conveying element is a pipe However, Dai teaches: introducing the heated gasses into the chamber of the warming element (3); returning the cooled exhaust gasses to the exhaust vent (Figure 3); wherein the fluid conveying element is a pipe (At least element 39). In view of Dai’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the warming element positioned remote from the cooking exhaust vent as is taught in Dai, in the method disclosed by Koch because a remote warming element will simplify access to the warming element. For instance, Dai teaches a warming element which would not require the user to reach above the cooktop. Regarding claim 15, Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the cooled exhaust gasses are vented via the exhaust vent to an external environment (“an appropriate vent flue 17” page 1, column 1, line 51) . Claim s 2, 3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch, in view of Dai, and further in view of Wallace ( US 3362319 A ), hereinafter Wallace . Regarding claims 2 and 3, Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 . Koch, as modified by Dai, does not disclose a screen positioned before the fan or a filter positioned before the fan. However, Wallace teaches a screen positioned before the fan or a filter positioned before the fan (“ a screen-filter unit 19, and a suction fan 25 ” column 2, line 25). In view of Wallace’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a screen positioned before the fan or a filter positioned before the fan as is taught in Wallace, in the system disclosed by Koch because a filter will remove odor and contaminants which would foul portions of the system . Regarding claims 16 and 17 , Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the method of claim 14. Koch, as modified by Dai, does not disclose a screen positioned such that the screen is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the screen prior to the fan or a filter positioned such that the filter is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the filter prior to the fan . However, Wallace teaches a screen positioned such that the screen is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the screen prior to the fan and a filter positioned such that the filter is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the filter prior to the fan (“ a screen-filter unit 19, and a suction fan 25 ” column 2, line 25). In view of Wallace’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a screen positioned such that the screen is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the screen prior to the fan and a filter positioned such that the filter is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the filter prior to the fan as is taught in Wallace, in the method disclosed by Koch because a filter will remove odor and contaminants which would foul portions of the system. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch, in view of Dai, and further in view of Korsmeier ( DE 3922090 A1 ), hereinafter Korsmeier . Regarding claim 4, Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 . Koch, as modified by Dai, does not disclose a controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to the exhaust gasses warming the warming element and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan . However, Korsmeier teaches a controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to exhausting gasses (“ On the suction surface 6 of the extractor hood 1 , two extractor temperature sensors 12 and 13 are arranged ” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference) and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan (“ If the signal exceeds the setpoint of the first comparison stage, a power transistor is driven and a relay activated for the first fan speed. The fan is running with the first stage. If the temperature difference increases e.g. by switching on additional hotplates, this increases already amplified signal. If the signal exceeds the target value of the second comparison level (e.g. 8K), the lei control transistor of this stage and the relay for the second fan stage is activated. The fan runs with the second stage ”). In view of Korsmeier’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to exhausting gasses and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan as is taught in Korsmeier, in the system disclosed by Koch because Korsmeier states “ The invention has for its object the fan control tion for the extractor hood of the type mentioned at the beginning more reliable .” Therefore, including the automatic control of the fan will improve reliability in Koch . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch, in view of Dai, in view of Korsmeier, and further in view of Parvin ( US 20130092148 A1 ), hereinafter Parvin . Regarding claim 5, Koch, as modified by Dai and Korsmeier, discloses the system of claim 4 . Koch, as modified by Dai and Korsmeier, does not disclose wherein prior to activating the fan, the controller determines if the warming element is below a second threshold temperature and if below said second threshold temperature, the controller activates the fan. However, Parvin teaches wherein prior to activating the pump , the controller determines if the warming element is below a second threshold temperature and if below said second threshold temperature, the controller activates the pump (“ The controller device 1302 can further receive a signal from a temperature sensor 1302 in the hot water storage reservoir indicating the temperature of the water in the reservoir to regulate the pumping. For example, the controller device may be configured to compare the temperature of the water exiting each of the heat exchanger sets with the temperature of the water in the storage reservoir, and allow the circulating device including flow diverters to transfer water only from those heat exchanger sets for which the exiting water has a higher temperature than the temperature of the hot water storage reservoir. Thus exiting water having a higher temperature than the temperature of the water in the storage reservoir will be allowed to flow through diverters D1, D2, and D3 via pathways A to meet at a common point P from which the water is then circulated to the water storage reservoir ” paragraph [0096]) . In view of Parvin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to exhausting gasses and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan as is taught in Parvin in the system as presently modified because the control of Parvin will ensure that the warming element is not cooled by the flow in the system as modified . Claim s 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch, in view of Dai, and further in view of Hepner ( US 4235220 A ), hereinafter Hepner . Regarding claims 6 and 7, Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 . Koch, as modified by Dai, does not disclose a deflection element positioned within the fluid conveying element and between the exhaust vent and the fan , a recess positioned below the deflection element, wherein the recess is configured to be opened for cleaning. However, Hepner teaches a deflection element positioned within the fluid conveying element and between the exhaust vent and the fan, a recess positioned below the deflection element, wherein the recess is configured to be opened for cleaning (“ Secondary grease filter 56 is similar in construction to primary grease filter 52 and as such includes a number of layers of expanded metal screen immediately adjacent to one another, supported in a suitable frame structure. In the immediate vicinity of secondary grease filter 56, an access door 58 is provided through exhaust air conduit 54 for the purpose of allowing secondary grease filter 56 to be removed, cleaned and/or replaced at necessary intervals of time ” column 5, line 13). In view of Hepner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a deflection element positioned within the fluid conveying element and between the exhaust vent and the fan, a recess positioned below the deflection element, wherein the recess is configured to be opened for cleaning as is taught in Hepner, in the system disclosed by Koch because including a deflection element will remove grease from the exhaust flow which would otherwise foul the system . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch, in view of Dai, and further in view of Cachot ( EP 2436991 A1 ), hereinafter Cachot . Regarding claim 12, Koch, as modified by Dai, discloses the system of claim 1 . Koch, as modified by Dai, does not disclose a controller configured to activate a second heating element which is an electric or combustion heating element adjacent the warming element when a temperature of the exhaust gasses are below a threshold temperature. However, Cachot teaches a controller configured to activate a second heating element which is an electric or combustion heating element adjacent the warming element when a temperature of the gasses are below a threshold temperature (“ auxiliary heating means (70, 72, 82, 84) adapted to optionally heat the blown air as a function of the outside air temperature measurement. (S62) and / or a supply air temperature measurement (S50) ”). In view of Cachot’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a controller configured to activate a second heating element which is an electric or combustion heating element adjacent the warming element when a temperature of the gasses are below a threshold temperature as is taught in Cachot, in the system disclosed by Koch because including an auxiliary heater will improve the steadiness and reliability of the heat delivered to the target. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch, in view of Dai, in view of Cachot, and further in view of Galtz ( WO 2008095466 A1 ), hereinafter Galtz . Regarding claim 13, Koch, as modified by Dai and Cachot, discloses the system of claim 12 . Koch, as modified by Dai and Cachot, does not disclose wherein the second heating element is activated based on one or more time limits. However, Galtz teaches wherein the second heating element is activated based on one or more time limits (“ The temperature control is heated by the waste heat of the drive motor 12. If necessary, the temperature control can be additionally heated by means of the auxiliary heater 22, wherein the heater 22 is controlled by a control unit 30, as shown by the dashed control line 32. The control unit 30 includes a timer 34, with which the operating time of the auxiliary heater 22 is monitored ” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference). In view of the teachings of Galtz, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the second heating element is activated based on one or more time limits as is taught in Galtz, in the system as presently modified because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner , 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) . In this case, providing a timer to automatically terminate the secondary heater is not sufficient to distinguish over Koch as modified. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim ( KR 20120027730 A ) Han ( CN 104359131 A ) Gui ( CN 108542145 A ) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4309 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6460 . 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. /LOGAN P JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762