DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 2, 4- 5, 7 , and 9 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) . For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a battery top cover sheet ( top cover ) , which comprises a top cover body ( first cover ) , wherein an electrolyte filling structure, a boss ( second cover ) , and a process groove ( feed ing or filling groove ) are arranged on the top cover body ( [0030], [0045], and fig. 2 ref. #110, #120, #300 ). T he electrolyte filling structure comprises a sinking groove ( injection groove ) located on an upper surface ( second surface ) of the top cover body and a filling port ( through hole ) penetrating through the top cover body ( [0045] and fig. 2 ref. #112, #210, #220 ). T he boss is located on a lower surface ( first surface ) of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port, and the process groove is arranged on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the boss ( [00 32 ], and fig. 2 ref. #120, 220, #300 ). Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body ( fig. 2 ref. #120, the width of the boss decreases from the top to the bottom ) , and the boss and the top cover body are an integrated member ( [0048] ). Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 ( D1, [0054] ) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H ( H2, [0012] ) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 ( D2 +(D1-H2 , see fig.2 above, and [0054] ) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. These ranges encompass an embodiment wherein T1≥T2≥H. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches a diameter of the sinking groove decreases gradually in a downward direction ( [0013], and fig. 2 ref. #210 ) . Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port is provided with a fillet ( [0014], and fig. 2, the rounded corners at the edges of filling port, ref. #210, #220 ). Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a depth of the process groove rang ing from 0 mm to 1 mm ( [0010], and fig. 2 ref. #300 ). This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). 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. Claim 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Zhao ( Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 207664137 ) . For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U and CN - 207664137 - U Wang is relied upon as described above Regarding claim 3 , Wang teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 ( D1, [0054] ) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H ( H2, [0012] ) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 ( derived from T2= D2 +(D1-H2) , see fig.2 above, and [0054] ) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm . Wang also teaches that the diameter of the filling port is less than the width of the sinking groove ( injection groove ), represented herein as D . Wang is silent on the specific diameter of the filling port or the width of the sinking groove. Zhao teaches a battery with a cover plate including an electrolyte filling hole ( abstract ). The hole includes a sinking groove, which exactly matches the proportions of the sealing nail cap used in a sealing nail for the electrolyte filling hole ( [0037]-[0038], and fig. 2 and 3, ref. #2 ). The width of the sealing nail cap, and in turn the width of the sinking groove, is 7.5-8.0 mm ( outer diameter of the sealing nail cap, [0044] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of the sealing groove as taught by Zhao in the structure of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as it allows for a liquid injection hole large enough to fill the battery with the electrolyte while being small enough to be completely sealed with a reasonably sized sealing structure, in turn reducing battery failure rate and improving battery safety ( [0010] ). Modified with the sinking groove width of Zhao, the diameter of the filling port of modified Wang must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm . A lower limit of 4*(H+T2-T1) is -18.8 ( derived from 4*(0+0.3- 5 ) = - 18.8 ) and an upper limit of 6* (H+T2-T1) is 9 ( derived from 6 *( 1 + 1.5 -1) = 9 ). Therefore, based on the ranges as taught by modified Wang, the limitation 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1) falls within the claimed ranges for T1, H, T2, and D. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 8 , modified Wang is silent on the radius ranges of the fillet . However, as modified Wang has a sinking groove width that must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm, and as each side of the boss in the sinking groove cannot be more than half of the width of the sinking groove ( see fig. 2, ref. #210, 120, otherwise no filling port would exist ), the radius of the fillet must be 2 mm or less. This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U Wang is relied upon as described above. Wang also teaches a taper angle of the sinking groove may range from 90° to 170° ( [0049], α is 0° to 80° from vertical, which is 90° to 170° from horizontal, and fig. 2 ref. #210 ) . This overlaps with the claimed range of 110° to 111°. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). Claim s 1 0 - 11, 13- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Baek ( US Patent Application Publication No. 2012 / 0070697 . ) For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a battery top cover sheet ( top cover ), which comprises a top cover body ( first cover ), wherein an electrolyte filling structure, a boss ( second cover ), and a process groove ( feeding or filling groove ) are arranged on the top cover body ( [0030], [0045], and fig. 2 ref. #110, #120, #300 ). The electrolyte filling structure comprises a sinking groove ( injection groove ) located on an upper surface ( second surface ) of the top cover body and a filling port ( through hole ) penetrating through the top cover body ( [0045] and fig. 2 ref. #112, #210, #220 ). The boss is located on a lower surface ( first surface ) of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port, and the process groove is arranged on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the boss ( [0032], and fig. 2 ref. #120, 220, #300 ) . Wang also teaches a battery ( power battery ) that includes the battery top cover sheet. Wang is silent to the battery also comprising a housing and a core . Baek teaches a battery including a core ( electrode assembly ) and a housing ( can housing ) which contains the core, and a battery top cover sheet ( cap assembly ) to seal the top of the can ( abstract ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include t he core and housing as taught by Baek with the battery top cover sheet of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this combination as the housing would contain the electrolyte needed for battery function, and the core is required for a battery to function. Regarding claim 11, Wang also teaches a width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body ( fig. 2 ref. #120, the width of the boss decreases from the top to the bottom ) , and the boss and the top cover body are an integrated member ( [0048] ). Regarding claim 13, Wang also teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 ( D1, [0054] ) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H ( H2, [0012] ) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 ( D2 +(D1-H2 , see fig.2 above, and [0054] ) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm. These ranges encompass an embodiment wherein T1≥T2≥H. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 14, Wang also teaches a diameter of the sinking groove decreases gradually in a downward direction ( [0013], and fig. 2 ref. #210 ) . Regarding claim 15, Wang also teaches a taper angle of the sinking groove may range from 90° to 170° ( [0049], α is 0° to 80° from vertical, which is 90° to 170° from horizontal, and fig. 2 ref. #210 ) . This overlaps with the claimed range of 110° to 111°. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 16, Wang also teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port is provided with a fillet ( [0014], and fig. 2, the rounded corners at the edges of filling port, ref. #210, #220 ). Regarding claim 17, Wang is silent on the exact radius of the fillet . However, as appears in figure 2, the arc of the fillet belongs to one corner of a circle that has a diameter represented by approximately D1-H2. D1 ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm ( [0054] ) and H2 ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm ( [0012] ). Therefore, the diameter of the fillet ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, resulting in a radius of the fillet that ranges from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm. This overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 18, Wang also teaches a depth of the process groove rang ing from 0 mm to 1 mm ( [0010], and fig. 2 ref. #300 ). This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) . Claim s 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 214099733) in view of Baek ( US Patent Application Publication No. 2012 / 0070697 ) further in view of Zhao ( Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 207664137 ) . For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-214099733-U , CN - 207664137 - U . Wang and Baek are relied upon as described above. Regarding claim 12, Wang also teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 ( D1, [0054] ) that ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H ( H2, [0012] ) that ranges from 0 mm to 1 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 ( derived from T2= D2 +(D1-H2) , see fig.2 above, and [0054] ) that ranges from 0.3 mm to 6.5 mm . Wang also teaches that the diameter of the filling port is less than the width of the sinking groove ( injection groove ), represented herein as D. Wang is silent on the specific diameter of the filling port or the width of the sinking groove. Zhao teaches a battery with a cover plate including an electrolyte filling hole ( abstract ). The hole includes a sinking groove, which exactly matches the proportions of the sealing nail cap used in a sealing nail for the electrolyte filling hole ( [0037]-[0038], and fig. 2 and 3, ref. #2 ). The width of the sealing nail cap, and in turn the width of the sinking groove, is 7.5-8.0 mm ( outer diameter of the sealing nail cap, [0044] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of the sealing groove as taught by Zhao in the structure of modified Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as it allows for a liquid injection hole large enough to fill the battery with the electrolyte while being small enough to be completely sealed with a reasonably sized sealing structure, in turn reducing battery failure rate and improving battery safety ( [0010] ). Modified with the sinking groove width of Zhao, the diameter of the filling port of modified Wang must be less than 7.5-8.0 mm. A lower limit of 4*(H+T2-T1) is -18.8 ( derived from 4*(0+0.3- 5 ) = - 18.8 ) and an upper limit of 6* (H+T2-T1) is 9 ( derived from 6 *( 1 + 1.5 -1) = 9 ). Therefore, based on the ranges as taught by modified Wang, the limitation 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1) falls within the claimed ranges for T1, H, T2, and D. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) Claims 1- 2, 4- 5, 9-11, 13- 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama ( Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007 / 018915 ) in view of Xu ( Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801 ) . For prior art discussion see English translations for JP - 2007018915 - A and CN - 111989801 - A . Regarding Claims 1-2 and 10-11, Takeyama teaches a battery comprising a housing ( battery case ) , a core ( battery elements ) , and a battery top cover sheet ( lid ) , wherein an upper end of the housing is opened, the core is arranged in the housing, and the battery top cover sheet covers the upper end of the housing to close the housing ( [0011], and fig. 1 ref. #2, #5 ). T he battery top cover sheet comprises a top cover body an electrolyte filling structur e ( electrolyte injection hole and related components ) and a process groove ( circular recess ) arranged on the top cover body ( [0011], and fig . 1 ref. #7, #21, #22 ). T he electrolyte filling structure comprises a sinking groove located on an upper surface of the top cover body ( stepped portion ) and a filling port ( electrolyte injection hole ) penetrating through the top cover body ( [0011], and fig. 1 ref. #21, #7 ). The process groove is arranged on a lower surface of the top cover body , as it is within the sinking groove. Takeyama is silent to the battery top cover sheet containing a boss, the boss being located on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port , the process groove being arranged around the boss , a width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body, and the boss and the top cover body being an integrated member Xu teaches a secondary battery including a housing for an electrode assembly and a battery top cover sheet ( cover ) sealing an opening in the housing and having an electrolyte filling structure ( electrolyte solution injection port ) ( abstract ). Xu also teaches the electrolyte filling structure containing a boss, t he boss being located on a lower surface of the top cover body and arranged around the filling port ( [0099] , and fig. 7 ref. #48P ). The width of the boss decreases gradually in a direction far away from the top cover body , and the boss and the top cover body are an integrated member ( as they are the both a part of the cover plate ref. #220 ) ( fig. 2, ref. #48P ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the boss structure as taught by Xu in the electrolyte filling structure of Takeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as the boss of Xu allows for increased fastening and sealing performance with a stopper that seals the electrolyte filling structure once the electrolyte is added ( [Xu, [0105] ). Modified Takeyama would have the process groove arranged around the boss , as the boss is required to be directly adjacent to the filling port, while there is separation between the process groove and the filling port ( Takeyama, fig. 1 ref. #7, #22 ). Regarding Claim s 4 and 13, Takeyama teaches a thickness of the top cover body is T1 is 1 mm , a depth of the sinking groove is H 0.5 mm , and a depth of the filling port is T2 is 0.5 mm. This satisfies the claimed limitation of T1≥T2≥H . Regarding Claim 5 and 14 , Takeyama is silent to a diameter of the sinking groove decreases gradually in a downward direction. Xu further teaches a diameter of the sinking groove ( second inlet ) decreases gradually in a downward direction , as the sinking groove is a tapered groove ( [0017], and fig. 1 ref. #292 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the diameter of the sinking groove of Takeyama decrease gradually in a downward direction as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as it allows for easier more of the electrolyte that falls into the sinking groove to flow into the filling port, in turn ensuring the maximum amount of electrolyte ends up inside of the battery casing . Regarding Claim 9 and 18 , Takeyama also teaches a depth of the process groove ( circular recess ) is 0.2 mm ( [0018] ). This value resides within the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm . In the case where the claimed value "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( MPEP 2144.05.I ) Claim s 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama ( Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007 / 018915 ) in view of Xu ( Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801 ), further in view of Lin (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018 / 0138492 ) . For prior art discussion see English translations for JP - 2007018915 - A and CN - 111989801 - A . Takeyama and Xu are relied upon as described above Takeyama further discloses a diameter of the filling port is D, which is 0.5 mm, a thickness of the top cover body is T1, which is 1 mm, a depth of the sinking groove is H, which is 0.5 mm, and a depth of the filling port is T2 , which is 0.5 mm. Takeyama and Xu are silent to the height of the boss. Lin discloses a liquid-injection hole of a secondary battery in the top cover of the battery case ( abstract ). As part of this electrolyte filling structure, a boss ( annular boss ) is included to contact a stopper used to seal the electrolyte filling structure once the electrolyte has been introduced ( [0060] ). The thickness of the boss is 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the boss of modified Takeyama with the height between 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm as taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as when the depth is larger the structural strength of the top cover and the stopper may be affected, and when the height is smaller the stress release capacity will be decreased . When the boss has a height ranging from 0.1 mm to 5.5 mm, the depth of the filling port must also increase by the same amount as to still penetrate into the battery housing and allow the electrolyte to fill the battery housing. Therefore, a depth of the filling port , T2, will range from 0.6 mm to 6 mm. With the aforementioned values for D, T1, H, and T2, the minimum value for 4*(H+T2-T1) is 0.4 mm ( derived from 4*( 0.5+0.6-1) =0.4 ) and the maximum value for 6*(H+T2-T1) is 33 mm ( derived from 6*(0.5+6-1) = 33 ). Therefore, since the diameter of the filling port is 0.5 mm, there lies a value within this range in which 4*(H+T2-T1) <D≤6*(H+T2-T1) . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) . Claim s 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama ( Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007 / 018915 ) in view of Xu ( Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801 ), further in view of Yeo (US Patent No. 7 , 479 , 347 ) . For prior art discussion see English translations for JP - 2007018915 - A and CN - 111989801 - A . Takeyama and Xu are relied upon as described above. Takeyama and Xu are silent to a taper angle of the sinking groove rang ing from 110° to 111° Yeo teaches a prismatic battery having an electrode assembly mounted in a prismatic battery case , with an electrolyte injection hole formed in a battery top cover ( base plate ) mounted to an open upper end of the battery housing ( battery case ). The sinking groove ( inside upper end ) of the electrolyte injection hole is formed in a downward taper structure ( abstract ). Yeo also teaches that the angle of the taper angle of the sinking groove ranges from 110° to 160° ( 20° to 70° from top of the sinking groove , or 110° to 160° from the bottom of the sinking groove, page 9, col. 3, lines 19-21 ), which encompasses the claimed range of 110° to 111°. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to us a taper angle of 110° to 160° as taught by Yeo in the sinking groove of modified Takeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range of angles as when the angle is too high it is easy to damage the sinking groove when sealing it with a stopper, and when the angle is too low it can be difficult to provide a high enough coupling force between the sinking groove and a stopper ( page 9, col. 3, lines 22-27 ). Claim s 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama ( Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007 / 018915 ) in view of Xu ( Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111989801 ), further in view Cook (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0145850). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP - 2007018915 - A and CN - 111989801 - A . Takeyama and Xu are relied upon as described above. Takeyama and Xu are silent to a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port being provided with a fillet , and a radius of the fillet ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm . Cook teaches a plated tubular lattice structure, which is considered an analogous art as Cook teaches a filling port ( through-hole ) with a sinking groove ( counter-bored hole ) that will be sealed with a separate structure ( abstract [0154] , [0181], and fig. 38, ref. #300, #302 ) . Cook also teaches a joint between the sinking groove and the filling port being provided with a fillet , and the radius of the fillet having a maximum radius of 20% of the diameter of the filling port ( [0180] ). This would result in a fillet with a maximum radius of 0.1 mm for modified Wang. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a fillet with a radius of 0.1 mm as taught by Cook in the joint between the sinking groove and filling port of modified Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as fillet s are an effective way to distribute stress over a broader area, increasing durability of the component, a s well as the specific radius of the fillet ensures that a fastener later used to seal the filling port will maintain sufficient bearing area, in turn still maintain ing sufficient contact with the sinking groove and filling port ( Cook, [0180] ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0214 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alicia Chevalier can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1490 . 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. /MAL/ Myles Alan Lovasz Examiner, Art Unit 1788 3/2 6 /2026 /Alicia Chevalier/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788