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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1–16, in the reply filed on 14 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This argument is found persuasive, and the restriction requirement mailed 1 December 2025 is withdrawn. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the guided wave radar sensor being arranged in the pump chamber of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because the reference numerals without lead lines in Figures 2 and 3 must be underlined (see 37CFR1.84(q)) and because the numbers indicating views (e.g. Figures 1a and 1b) must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters (see 37CFR1.84(u)(2)) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should begin by reciting “ A fryer,” and because it spells “fryer” alternatively as “frier,” which should be amended to recite “fryer” to conform with the presentation of the word throughout the rest of the disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The amendment filed 14 December 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of the European Application No. 21184156.4 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 5 July 2022 . See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 14 December 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the term “Testo SE & Co. KGaA,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, ℠ , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claims 1–17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 1–17 must begin with an article. Independent claims 1 and 17 must begin with the indefinite article, while dependent claims 2–16 may begin with either the definite or indefinite article, though the definite article is customary. Claim 3 recites “a pump chamber” (l. 4), but antecedent basis for this limitation is already provides on ll. 1–2 of the same claim, and so the definite article should be employed on l. 4. Claim 4 , l. 2, should be amended to recite “ the analysis unit.” Claim 9 recites “ the amount of total polar material” and “ the amount of free fatty acids,” but these terms do not have explicit antecedent basis, and should employ the indefinite article. The same issue is present in claim 11 , and the same remedy should be applied. Claim 12 recites, first, “the storage tank” (ll. 3–4), followed by “a storage tank” (ll. 5–6). The indefinite article should be employed first, and the definite article second. 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 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) 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: The analysis unit in claim s 1 and 17 (“ The analysis unit may comprise a processor, in particular a programmable processor ”) . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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. Comment: Although the “ memory unit ” of claim 9 and the “control unit” of claim 12 are formulated as limitation s to be interpreted under § 112(f), they are not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand a “memory unit” to be something like semiconductor memory, and a “control unit” to be something like a processor or a computer . See MPEP § 2181.I.C. : “ Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘ means ’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘ filters ’ ), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function. ” Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Barr (US Pub. 2024/0125714) . Claim 1: Barr discloses a fryer for frying food products (understood as intended use, see MPEP § 2111.02.II.) comprising: a frying vessel (114) for accommodating a frying oil (housing 114 is capable of accommodating a frying oil), a guided wave radar sensor (128, 142 , 143; ¶ 154, “guided wave radar device” ) arranged in the frying vessel (see e.g. figs. 7–11) , and an analysis unit for determining a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor (this functionality is described, among other places, in ¶ 20, where an analysis unit associated with the guided wave radar sensor is necessary and inherent given the described functionality) . Claim 3: Barr discloses that the fryer comprises a pump chamber (here, 112 may be considered the frying vessel, while 114 may be considered the pump chamber, since it is associated with pressure control arrangement 126 (analogous to 26 described elsewhere) which constitutes a pump (see ¶ 140)) which is part of the frying vessel, and the guided wave radar sensor is arranged in a pump chamber (see at least figs. 5 and 6). Claim 4: Barr discloses that the analysis unit is configured to determine the permittivity of the frying oil in the frying vessel based on the measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor associated with a signal reflection at an interface between air and the frying oil (see at least ¶ 18, “ The transceiver may also be configured for receiving a return electromagnetic signal reflected at, for example, the interface level between two media having different characteristics (such as a different dielectric permittivity or dielectric constant) ”) . Claim 8: Barr discloses that the analysis unit is configured to determine an amount of foreign matter in the frying vessel or cleaning liquid or water, depending on the determined permittivity (¶ 148, “ An interface detector 28 is provided to enable the volume of each media in the housing 14 to be determined ”; ¶ 147 makes clear that an amount of water would be determined based on the interface detector 28, i.e. the guided wave radar sensor via permittivity determination). Claim 10: Barr discloses that the analysis unit is configured to determine a filling level of the frying oil in the frying vessel based on measurements of the guided wave radar sensor ( see ¶ 150 describing how the “interface detector 28” (analogous to 128) determines a level of an oil-gas interface 40) . Claim 16: Barr discloses food processing line (understood as intended use, see MPEP § 2111.02.II.) comprising the fryer according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carvalho et al. (US Pub. 2011/0246100). Claim 1: Carvalho discloses a fryer for frying food products (understood as intended use, see MPEP § 2111.02.II.) comprising: a frying vessel (130) for accommodating a frying oil (this vessel is capable of accommodating a frying oil), a guided wave radar sensor (120, 115, 125, 110; this sensor uses time domain reflectometry with a radar (see ¶ 6) and is capable of measuring a fluid level ( ibid. ), which establishes proof that this sensor qualifies as a guided wave radar sensor) arranged in the frying vessel (see fig. 1), and an analysis unit for determining a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor (¶ 67, “some examples of derived fluid characteristics include . . . permittivity”; although Carvalho discloses a processor 312, a memory 314, and other components, it does not ascribe its analysis function to any particular unit (with the exception of its memory as mentioned in ¶ 68), but Carvalho discloses that its computer system has the function of determining the permittivity based on measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor, and therefore necessarily has one or more components which constitute an analysis unit as claimed). Claim 9: Carvalho discloses that a memory unit is configured to store a temporal course of the permittivity (fig. 6 discloses measuring a fluid characteristic over time (at least at two different times), where ¶ 67 makes clear that this characteristic may be permittivity; further, the measured fluid characteristics of different times are compared, which necessitates that a memory is being used to record these values) . Claim s 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US Pub. 2011/0214502) . Claim 1: Zhang discloses a fryer for frying food products (understood as intended use, see MPEP § 2111.02.II.) comprising: a frying vessel (T) for accommodating a frying oil (the tank T is capable of accommodating frying oil) , a guided wave radar sensor (SE ; the disclosure explains that these sensors employ time domain reflectometry via a radar (see at least ¶¶ 2 and 38) arranged in the frying vessel (see fig. 1) , and an analysis unit for determining a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor (the disclosure is clear that the guided wave radar sensor determines a permittivity of the contents in the vessel, as evidenced by how Zhang’s fluids F 1 and F 2 are discerned based on their permittivities (see ¶ 40); the claimed analysis unit fairly corresponds to the “detection facility” mentioned in claim 8) . Claim 11: Zhang discloses that the analysis unit is configured to generate a warning if the permittivity exceeds a predetermined threshold (Zhang discloses a threshold related to a detected state change between wet and dry, which results in an alarm (see ¶ 40) ; the analysis unit is necessarily involved since it determines the permittivity and fluid level ) . Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Farmanyan et al. (US Pub. 2019/0310125) . Claim 1: Farmanyan discloses a fryer for frying food products (understood as intended use, see MPEP § 2111.02.II.) comprising: a frying vessel (12) for accommodating a frying oil (the vessel is capable of accommodating frying oil) , a guided wave radar sensor (30; ¶ 41, “guided wave radar (GWR) system”) arranged in the frying vessel (evident from fig. 1) , and an analysis unit for determining a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor (¶ 2 discloses that the permittivity can be determined by time domain reflectometry, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be facilitated by the guided wave radar mentioned in, among other places, ¶ 41; ¶ 70 explains that GWR probe 30 sends its signals of measured material properties to a terminal 90 which can be connected to a computer or further processing electronics, and at least ¶ 107 clearly suggests that a computer would determine the property of the material, and therefore qualifies as an analysis unit as claimed) . Claim 15: Farmanyan discloses that the guided wave radar sensor comprises a stilling well (the first electrode 34 with openings 130 or 128 (shown in any of figs. 1–6) clearly qualifies as a stilling well) . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1–6 and 8–17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1–21 of copending Application No. 18/570,252 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims disclose or render obvious every limitation of the pending claims with one-way distinctness . Pending Claims Reference Claims Claim 1: Fryer for frying food products comprising: a frying vessel for accommodating a frying oil , a guided wave radar sensor arranged in the frying vessel, and an analysis unit for determining a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of the guided wave radar sensor. Claim 12: Fryer according to claim 1, wherein the fryer comprises a control unit that is configured to control an inflow of replacement frying oil into the frying vessel or from the storage tank that is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel; and/or an outflow of used frying oil from the frying vessel or to a storage tank that is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel, based on the measurements of the guided wave radar sensor. Claim 16: Food processing line comprising the fryer according to claim 1. Claim 1: Food processing line comprising a fryer for frying food products, the food processing line comprising: a frying vessel for accommodating a frying oil , at least one storage tank arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel, a first guided wave radar sensor arranged in the frying vessel, an analysis unit for determining a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of the first guided wave radar sensor, at least one additional guided wave radar sensor in the at least one storage tank, a control unit that is configured to control: i) an inflow of replacement frying oil into the frying vessel from the at least one storage tank that is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel; and/or ii) an outflow of used frying oil from the frying vessel to the at least one storage tank that is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel, based on the measurements of the first guided wave radar sensor and based on the measurements of the at least one additional guided wave radar sensor which is arranged in the storage tank for frying oil. Claim 17: Method for frying food products in a frying vessel of a fryer , the frying vessel contains frying oil or melted frying fat , wherein the method comprises: conveying with at least one conveyor the food products to be fried through the frying vessel, and determining with an analysis unit a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of a guided wave radar sensor , wherein the guided wave radar sensor is arranged in the frying vessel. Claim 20: Method for frying food products in a frying vessel of a fryer , wherein the frying vessel contains frying oil or melted frying fat , wherein at least one conveyor conveys the food products to be fried through the frying vessel, and wherein at least one storage tank is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel, wherein the method comprises: determining with an analysis unit a permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the frying vessel based on measurement data of a first guided wave radar sensor arranged in the frying vessel and the permittivity of the frying oil accommodated in the at least one storage tank based on measurement of at least one additional guided wave radar sensor that is arranged in the at least one storage tank ; controlling an inflow of replacement frying oil into the frying vessel from the at least one storage tank that is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel; and/or an outflow of used frying oil from the frying vessel, to the at least one storage tank that is arranged in fluid communication with the frying vessel based on the measurements of the first guided wave radar sensor and based on the measurements of the at least one additional guided wave radar sensor that is arranged in the at least one storage tank for frying oil. Regarding pending claim 2, see reference claim 2. Regarding pending claim 3, see reference claim 3. Regarding pending claim 4, see reference claim 7. Regarding pending claim 5, see reference claim 8. Regarding pending claim 6, see reference claim 9. Although reference claim 9 does not depend on its own reference claim 8 in the same way that pending claim 6 depends from pending claim 5, it would have been clear, given the context, to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the analysis unit would determine the total polar material and/or the amount of free fatty acids via its permittivity measurements (i.e. since that is already a part of reference claim 1). Regarding pending claim 8, see reference claim 11. Regarding pending claim 9, see reference claim 12. Regarding pending claim 10, see reference claim 13. Regarding pending claim 11, see reference claim 14. Regarding pending claim 13, see reference claim 15. Regarding pending claim 14, see reference claim 16. Regarding pending claim 15, see reference claim 17. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter All of c laims 2, 5–7, and 12–14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims , and a terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome the double patenting rejection. Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action , and a terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome the double patenting rejection . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Guided wave radar sensors are well-known, but are not known in the field of cooking by frying with oil. Guided wave radar sensors are overwhelmingly used to determine boundaries between fluids being stored, but are also used to determine the moisture content in soil, and other aspects of fluids. Within the field of cooking by frying, measuring the permittivity of frying oil is well-known, but in the art, this permittivity measurement seems invariable done by capacitive measurement means. The Office does not find a sufficient suggestion within the art that one of ordinary skill in the art would have simply replaced known capacitive measurement means with a guided wave radar even if they both perform the function of measuring the permittivity of a fluid, particularly because any equivalence between the elements (MPEP § 2144.06.II.) , or any comparative advantages and disadvantages that are of concern with measuring frying oil, are not readily apparent. Each claim indicated as having allowable subject matter has some feature which has use in the frying arts , but does not have use in the arts which conventionally use permittivity measurements by guided wave radar sensors such as those cited for the prior art claim rejections above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT John J. Norton whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5174 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8648 . 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. /JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761