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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 44 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 44 is objected to for containing an apparent typographical error, whereby claim 44 recites “a glass element, made of the environment-friendly glass material according to claim 28, made of the environment-friendly glass material”. This appears to be a typographical error because claim 44 twice recites the phrase “made of the environment-friendly glass material”.
Claim 45 is object5ed to for containing an apparent typographical error, whereby claim 45 recites “a device, comprising the environment-friendly glass material according to claim 28, made of the environment-friendly glass material”. This appears to be a typographical error because claim 45 twice recites the phrase “environment-friendly glass material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 37 recites “the component thereof is expressed in weight percentage, satisfying one or more of the following 6 situations … SiO2 is 0.07-0.95”. However, claim 37 depends upon claim 28 which recites 35-80% of SiO2. Because claim 37 depends upon claim 28, the range of SiO2 recited in claim 37 cannot be outside of the range of claim 28.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 28-45 and 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakoske (US20080063876, hereinafter referred to as Sakoske).
Regarding claim 28, Sakoske discloses an environment-friendly glass material (see Sakoske at the Abstract, disclosing glass. While Sakoske does not explicitly disclose the glass is environment-friendly, Examiner notes this property is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0006] disclosing comprising components like SiO2, ZnO, alkali metal oxide and S, but does not contain Cd. Because the glass of Sakoske comprises SiO2, ZnO, alkali metal oxide and S, but does not contain Cd as detailed in the rejections below, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the environment-friendly limitation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).),
comprising the following components by weight percentage: 35-80% of SiO2 (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 8-55 wt.% SiO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05)., 5-35% of ZnO (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 5-50% ZnO, which overlaps with the claimed range.), 5-25% of Na2O (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises …0-15% Na2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 1-8% of K2O (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-10% K2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and 0.2-8% of S (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-3% sulfur, which overlaps with the claimed range.), wherein the environment-friendly glass material does not contain Cd (see Sakoske at [0010], which does not require a positive amount of Cd).
While Sakoske does not explicitly disclose wherein when the thickness of the environment-friendly glass material is 3mm, the cutoff wavelength is above 550nm, the transmittance at 800-850nm is above 75%, the transmittance at 850-900nm is above 80%, the transmittance at 900-1000nm is above 83%, and the transmittance at 1000-2000nm is above 85%, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0047] disclosing if the content of ZnO exceeds 35% ... which will greatly decrease the near-infrared transmittance of the glass. The instant specification at [0048] discloses if the value of ZnO/SiO2 is higher than 0.95, the glass is prone to devitrification of non-coloring substance, which is easy to lead to a rapid decline in near-infrared transmittance. The instant specification at [0049] discloses the alkali metal oxide can provide more free oxygen, and enhance the near-infrared transmittance of the glass while achieving better cutoff performance. The instant specification at [0058] discloses if the content of S exceeds 8%, the glass is prone to devitrification, and the near-infrared transmittance declines sharply. Therefore, because the glass of Sakoske is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the claimed transmittance properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 29, while Sakoske does not explicitly disclose when the thickness of the environment-friendly glass material is 3mm, satisfying one or more of the following 5 situations: 1) the cutoff wavelength is above 650nm ;2) the transmittance at 800-850nm is above 77% ;3) the transmittance at 850-900nm is above 82% ;4) the transmittance at 900-1000nm is above 84% ;5) the transmittance at 1000-2000nm is above 86%, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0047] disclosing if the content of ZnO exceeds 35% ... which will greatly decrease the near-infrared transmittance of the glass. The instant specification at [0048] discloses if the value of ZnO/SiO2 is higher than 0.95, the glass is prone to devitrification of non-coloring substance, which is easy to lead to a rapid decline in near-infrared transmittance. The instant specification at [0049] discloses the alkali metal oxide can provide more free oxygen, and enhance the near-infrared transmittance of the glass while achieving better cutoff performance. The instant specification at [0058] discloses if the content of S exceeds 8%, the glass is prone to devitrification, and the near-infrared transmittance declines sharply. Therefore, because the glass of Sakoske is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the claimed transmittance properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 30, while Sakoske does not explicitly disclose when the thickness of the environment-friendly glass material is 3mm, , satisfying one or more of the following 5 situations: 1) the cutoff wavelength is above 700nm ;2) the transmittance at 800-850nm is above 80% ;3) the transmittance at 850-900nm is above 83% ;4) the transmittance at 900-1000nm is above 85% 5) the transmittance at 1000-2000nm is above 87%, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0047] disclosing if the content of ZnO exceeds 35% ... which will greatly decrease the near-infrared transmittance of the glass. The instant specification at [0048] discloses if the value of ZnO/SiO2 is higher than 0.95, the glass is prone to devitrification of non-coloring substance, which is easy to lead to a rapid decline in near-infrared transmittance. The instant specification at [0049] discloses the alkali metal oxide can provide more free oxygen, and enhance the near-infrared transmittance of the glass while achieving better cutoff performance. The instant specification at [0058] discloses if the content of S exceeds 8%, the glass is prone to devitrification, and the near-infrared transmittance declines sharply. Therefore, because the glass of Sakoske is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the claimed transmittance properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 31, Sakoske discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 0.5-10% of Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe ; and/or 0-5% of Li2O; and/or 0-10% of B2O3: and/or 0-5% of Al2O3; and/or 0-5% of MgO; and/or 0-5% of CaO; and/or 0-10% of SrO: and/or 0-10% of BaO; and/or 0-5% of Se; and/or 0-5% of F (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-12% Li2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 32, Sakoske discloses an environment-friendly glass material (see Sakoske at the Abstract, disclosing glass. While Sakoske does not explicitly disclose the glass is environment-friendly, Examiner notes this property is inherently present as detailed by the rejection of claim 28 above), comprising the following components by weight percentage: 35-80% of SiO2 (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 8-55 wt.% SiO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 5-35% of ZnO (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 5-50% ZnO, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 5-25% of Na2O (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises …0-15% Na2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 1-8% of K2O (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-10% K2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0-5% of Li2O (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-12% Li2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0.2-8% of S (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-3% sulfur, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0.5-10% of Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe (see Sakoske at [0011], disclosing 0.1-10%, of coloring oxides such as CoO, Cr2O3, MnO, Pr2O3, Fe2O3, NiO, CuO, which corresponds to 0.1-10% Fe2O3 which provides a sum total of Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe of 0.1-10%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0-10% of B2O3 (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 5-40% B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0-5% of Al2O3 (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-7% Al2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0-5% of MgO (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-5% MgO, which is the claimed range.); 0-5% of CaO (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-10% CaO, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0-10% of SrO (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-10% SrO, which is the claimed range.); 0-10% of BaO (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-10% BaO, which is the claimed range.); 0-5% of Se (see Sakoske at [0010], which does not disclose the glass comprises Se, which corresponds to 0% Se.); 0- 5% of F (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-9% fluorine, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and do not contain Cd (see Sakoske at [0010], which does not require a positive amount of Cd).
Regarding claim 33, Sakoske discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 40-75% of SiO2; and/or 7-30% of ZnO, and/or 7-22% of Na2O; and/or 2-8% of K2O; and/or 0-3% of Li2O; and/or 0.5-7% of S; and/or 0.8-9% of Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe; and/or 0-5% of B2O3; and/or 0-3% of Al2O3; and/or 0-3% of MgO; and/or 0-3% of CaO; and/or 0-5% of SrO; and/or 0-5% of BaO; and/or 0-4% of Se: and/or 0-3% of F (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 8-55 wt.% SiO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 34, Sakoske discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 42-73% of SiO2; and/or 9-25% of ZnO; and/or 8-19% of Na2O; and/or 3-7% of K2O; and/or 1-6% of S; and/or 0.9-8% of Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe; and/or 0-3% of Se; and/or 0-2% of Li2O; and/or 0-3% of B2O3; and/or 0-1% of Al2O3; and/or 0-2% of MgO; and/or 0-2% of CaO; and/or 0-2% of SrO; and/or 0-2% of BaO; and/or 0-1% of F (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 8-55 wt.% SiO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 35, Sakoske discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 0-0.5% of CuO+TiO2+P2O5 (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing 0-20% TiO2, 0-10% P2O5, and [0011] disclosing 0-10% … CuO. This provides a range of CuO+TiO2+P2O5 of from 0-40%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 36, Sakoske discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 0.0001-0.3% of CuO+TiO2+P2O5 (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing 0-20% TiO2, 0-10% P2O5, and [0011] disclosing 0-10% … CuO. This provides a range of CuO+TiO2+P2O5 of from 0-40%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 37, Sakoske discloses the component thereof is expressed in weight percentage, satisfying one or more of the following 6 situations: 1) B2O3/SiO2 is below 0.23; 2)SiO2 is 0.07-0.95; 3)Se/S is below 1.5; 4) (Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe)/(Se+S) is 0.1-25.0; 5) (Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe)/Sb is below 3.0; 6) Li2O+Na2O+K2O is 8-35% (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-12% Li2O, 0-15% Na2O, 0-10% K2O which corresponds to a value of Li2O+Na2O+K2O of 0-37%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 38, Sakoske discloses the component thereof is expressed in weight percentage, satisfying one or more of the following 6 situations: 1)B2O3/SiO2 is below 0.15; 2)ZnO/SiO2 is 0.10-0.75; 3)Se/S is below 1.0; 4) (Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe)/(Se+S) is 0.5-8.0; 5) (Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe)/Sb is below 2.0; 6) Li2O+Na2O+K2O is 9-30% (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-12% Li2O, 0-15% Na2O, 0-10% K2O which corresponds to a value of Li2O+Na2O+K2O of 0-37%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 39, Sakoske discloses the component thereof is expressed in weight percentage, satisfying one or more of the following 6 situations: 1)B2O3/SiO2 is below 0.1; 2)ZnO/SiO2 is 0.15-0.60; 3)Se/S is below 0.5; 4) (Sb+Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe)/(Se+S) is 1.0-5.0; 5) (Ag+Ce+Sn+Te+V+Fe)/Sb is below 0.8; 6) Li2O+Na2O+K2O is 10-22% (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-12% Li2O, 0-15% Na2O, 0-10% K2O which corresponds to a value of Li2O+Na2O+K2O of 0-37%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 40, while Sakoske does not explicitly disclose when the thickness of the environment-friendly glass material is 3mm, the cutoff wavelength is above 600nm; and/or the transmittance at 800-850nm is above 77%; and/or the transmittance at 850-900nm is above 82%; and/or the transmittance at 900-1000nm is above 84%; and/or the transmittance at 1000-2000nm is above 86%, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0047] disclosing if the content of ZnO exceeds 35% ... which will greatly decrease the near-infrared transmittance of the glass. The instant specification at [0048] discloses if the value of ZnO/SiO2 is higher than 0.95, the glass is prone to devitrification of non-coloring substance, which is easy to lead to a rapid decline in near-infrared transmittance. The instant specification at [0049] discloses the alkali metal oxide can provide more free oxygen, and enhance the near-infrared transmittance of the glass while achieving better cutoff performance. The instant specification at [0058] discloses if the content of S exceeds 8%, the glass is prone to devitrification, and the near-infrared transmittance declines sharply. Therefore, because the glass of Sakoske is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the claimed transmittance properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 41, while Sakoske does not explicitly disclose when the thickness of the environment-friendly glass material is 3mm, the cutoff wavelength is above 700nm; and/or the transmittance at 800-850nm is above 80%; and/or the transmittance at 850-900nm is above 83%; and/or the transmittance at 900-1000nm is above 85%; and/or the transmittance at 1000-2000nm is above 87%, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0047] disclosing if the content of ZnO exceeds 35% ... which will greatly decrease the near-infrared transmittance of the glass. The instant specification at [0048] discloses if the value of ZnO/SiO2 is higher than 0.95, the glass is prone to devitrification of non-coloring substance, which is easy to lead to a rapid decline in near-infrared transmittance. The instant specification at [0049] discloses the alkali metal oxide can provide more free oxygen, and enhance the near-infrared transmittance of the glass while achieving better cutoff performance. The instant specification at [0058] discloses if the content of S exceeds 8%, the glass is prone to devitrification, and the near-infrared transmittance declines sharply. Therefore, because the glass of Sakoske is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the claimed transmittance properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 42, while Sakoske does not explicitly disclose wherein acid resistance stability of the environment-friendly glass material is Class 1; and/or water resistance stability is Class 1; and/or thermal expansion coefficient is above 95x10-7/K, the thermal expansion coefficient of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0051], which states Na2O in the glass can ... enhance the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass. Because the glass of Sakoske is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass as detailed by the rejection of the claims above such as claim 32, the glass of Sakoske would inherently possess the claimed thermal expansion coefficient. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 43, Sakoske discloses a glass preform, made of the environment-friendly glass material (See Sakoske at [0024], disclosing the molten glass formed can then be suddenly cooled in a known manner (e.g., water quenched) to form a frit. The frit can then be ground using conventional milling techniques to a fine particle size. Examiner notes this corresponds to a preform per [0096], disclosing the glass preform can be made by making a preform for compression molding with the environment-friendly glass material, re-thermoforming this preform, and then grinding this preform).
Regarding claim 44, Sakoske discloses a glass element, made of the environment-friendly glass material (See Sakoske at [0009], disclosing glass enamel with glass substrates such as those used in the beverage, cosmetic, and architectural industries, e.g., bottles for soft drinks and alcoholic beverages, cosmetic and perfume containers, and plate glass for furniture or buildings, which Examiner notes corresponds to a glass element.).
Regarding claim 45, Sakoske discloses a device, comprising the environment-friendly glass material (See Sakoske at [0009], disclosing glass enamel with glass substrates such as those used in the beverage, cosmetic, and architectural industries, e.g., bottles for soft drinks and alcoholic beverages, cosmetic and perfume containers, and plate glass for furniture or buildings, which Examiner notes corresponds to a glass device.).
Regarding claim 48, while Sakoske does not explicitly disclose the content of S is a content of sulfur in all sulfur-containing substances in the glass that are completely converted to elemental sulfur, Sakoske discloses the inclusion of sulfur compounds in terms of elemental sulfur (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-3% sulfur.).
Regarding claim 49, Sakoske discloses the content of S is 1 to 6% (see Sakoske at [0010], disclosing the glass component comprises … 0-3% sulfur, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 28-35 under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Additionally, the amendments filed 11/10/2025 have overcome the objections to claims 28 and 31-39, however, a new objection has been introduced for claims 44 and 45 as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 28-31, 33-34, and 42-45 in view of Kolberg under 102 and claims 32 and 35-41 in view of Kolberg under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because Kolberg at the Abstract discloses the minimum K2O content is 10%. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakoske under 103 as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731