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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 20) in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 24, 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 2, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites, in line 3, “from zero (or 1) to 10 weight % MgO.” Similarly, claim 3 recites, in line 3, “from zero (or 1) to 6 weight % MgO.” In both cases, the value in parentheses creates ambiguity as to which value is being claimed as the lower limit: is it 0 or 1? Also, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation zero to 10 weight % MgO, and the claim also appears to recite 1 to 10 weight % MgO, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Likewise, claim 3 recites the broad recitation zero to 6 weight % MgO, and the claim also appears to recite 1 to 6 weight % MgO, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Thus, claims 2 and 3 are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 11 recites, in lines 2-3, “ a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) ”; the claim further recites, in line 4, “ a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) .” The material in parenthes e s render the claim unclear, as it is not apparent whether the material in parenthes e s is limiting or not . For purposes of claim interpretation, claims 2 and 3 will be treated as claiming the broader range in each claim, i.e., zero to 10 weight % MgO in the case of claim 2 and zero to 6 weight % MgO in the case of claim 3. For purposes of claim interpretation, the material in parentheses in claim 11 will be treated as limiting, such a reading being in agreement with the written description (see the Specification at p. 8, giving particle size ranges for Cristobalite grit and flour mineral forms; and see also pp. 21-22, Tables 7 and 8). 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 4 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 4 at present recites “ the balance being other minerals and/or unavoidable impurities .” Because they are listed separately, “ other minerals ” must refer to a component other than “ unavoidable impurities .” However, claim 1 (from which claim 4 depends) specifies that “unavoidable impurities” make up “any balance” in the glass composition that is not CaO , MgO, or SiO 2 . Therefore, it is unclear how the glass composition of dependent claim 4 could include “ other minerals ” beyond the CaO , MgO, SiO 2 , and unavoidable impurities. 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. For purposes of claim interpretation, “ the balance being other minerals and/or unavoidable impurities ” will be treated as if reciting “ the balance being unavoidable impurities ,” in line with the parallel limitation in each of claims 1 through 3. 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. Claim(s) 1- 2 , 8 , and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,332,699 to Olds et al. (hereinafter “Olds”). Regarding claim 1, Olds teaches a glass composition (i.e., composition for inorganic glass fibers, see Col. 8, line 9) comprising 50–70 weight % SiO 2 , 0–30 weight % MgO, 0–6 weight % Al 2 O 3 , and the balance CaO (see claim 1). In particular, Olds teaches a number of particular compositions, some of which are summarized in Table A below (values taken from Table 4 of Olds ; the value for “impurities” is taken from the total amount of amphoteric oxides in column 4 of Table 4 ): Table A Component Claim 1 Olds Sample Numbers (Table 4) (wt.%) 23 31 54 59 CaO 29 – 45 43.0 36.7 32.3 32.6 MgO 0 – 30 0.45 4.53 6.36 5.19 SiO 2 41 – 65 55.9 58.1 60.3 61.7 Impurities balance 0.10 0.05 0.19 0.04 Component Claim 1 Olds Sample Numbers (Table 4) (wt.%) 61 62 63 68 CaO 29 – 45 30.3 29.5 31.1 30.97 MgO 0 – 30 6.64 7.70 5.28 2.60 SiO 2 41 – 65 62.5 62.5 63.1 64.1 Impurities balance 0.04 0.05 0.04 1.25 Thus, Olds discloses numerous glass compositions that read on every limitation of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Sample Nos. 54, 59, 61-63, and 68 in Olds disclose every limitation of claim 2, as shown in Table A above. Regarding claim 8, Olds teaches Sample Nos. 23, 31, 54, 59, and 61-63, each of which comprises less than 0.2 weight % Al 2 O 3 (see Table 4). Regarding claim 10, each of Sample Nos. 23, 31, 54, 59, 61-63, and 68 in Olds comprises less than 65 weight % SiO 2 , as shown in Table A above. Claim(s) 1 , 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,948,129 to Nonami et al. (hereinafter “ Nonami ”). Regarding claim 1, Nonami discloses a glass composition (Abstract) comprising the components summarized in Table B below: Table B Component Claim 1 (wt.%) Nonami (Col. 19, Table 1, Example E 7) CaO 29 – 45 32 MgO 0 – 30 16.5 SiO 2 41 – 65 51.5 Impurities balance 0.51 (0.01 wt.% Au and 0.5 wt.% CeO 2 ) Thus, Nonami teaches a glass composition reading on every limitation of claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Nonami teaches that the glass composition (Example E 7) possesses 0% crystallinity after molding (Table 1), indicating that the glass composition is greater than 95% by weight amorphous. Regarding claim 8, Nonami teaches some embodiments wherein the glass composition comprises small amounts of Fe 2 O 3 , TiO 2 , and/or ZrO 2 (see Table 1); however, Example E 7 lists none of those oxides being present, reasonably indicating that the amount of each of those oxides in glass composition Example E 7 is substantially zero, and thus within the recited ranges of claim 8. Regarding claim 10, Nonami teaches wherein the glass composition comprises 51.5 weight % SiO 2 (Table 1 , Example E 7 ), which is within the recited range of less than 65 weight % in claim 10. 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 - 6 , 8-10 , and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0115278 to Toncelli (hereinafter “ Toncelli ”). Regarding claim s 1 -3 , Toncelli teaches a glass composition (glass frit, ¶ 00 39 ) comprising the following components (all values in weight %): Table C Component Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Toncelli CaO 29 – 45 29 – 34 29 – 30 12 < CaO < 30 (¶ 0041; claim 6) MgO 0 – 30 0 – 10 0 – 6 1.5 < MgO < 1 1 (¶ 0042; claim 6) SiO 2 41 – 65 60 – 65 60 – 65 48 < SiO 2 < 73 (¶ 0040; claim 6) Impurities balance balance balance 1.0 < Al 2 O 3 < 19 (¶ 0043; claim 6) 0 < ZrO 2 < 20 (¶ 0044; claim 6) Thus, for each of the claimed component ranges in each of claims 1-3, Toncelli teaches a glass composition with a range that lies within or overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). For unavoidable impurities, Toncelli teaches ranges for Al 2 O 3 and ZrO 2 which, at the lower end of each range, would combine to a total amount of unavoidable impurities of much less than 5 weight % (see Applicant’s Specification at p. 10, lines 5-7). Regarding claim 4, Toncelli teaches glass composition (glass frit, ¶ 0045) comprising the following components (all values in weight %): Table D Component Claim 4 Toncelli CaO 29.258 5 < CaO < 30 (¶ 0047; claim 7) MgO 5.519 0 < MgO < 12 (¶ 0048; claim 7) SiO 2 64.936 43 < SiO 2 < 80 (¶ 0046; claim 7) Impurities balance 0 < Al 2 O 3 < 25 (¶ 004 9 ; claim 7) 0 < ZrO 2 < 20 (¶ 00 50 ; claim 7) 0 < Na 2 O < 12 (¶ 00 51 ; claim 7) 0 < K 2 O < 10 (¶ 00 52 ; claim 7) Thus, for each of the claimed component s in claim 4 , Toncelli teaches a glass composition with a range that overlaps the claimed value . In a case where claimed values lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). For unavoidable impurities, Toncelli teaches ranges for Al 2 O 3 , ZrO 2 , Na 2 O, and K 2 O which, at the lower end of each range (i.e., near zero) , would combine to a total amount of unavoidable impurities within the balance of claim 4 . Regarding claim 5, Toncelli teaches wherein the glass composition is greater than 99% by weight amorphous, crystalline silicon dioxide material being present “in amounts less than 1% by weight” (¶ 0034; claim 1; Abstract). Regarding claim 6, Toncelli teaches wherein the glass composition comprises quartz (crystalline silicon dioxide) at less than 1 weight % ( ¶ 0034 ). Regarding claim 8, Toncelli teaches wherein the glass composition comprises less than 0.1 weight % Fe 2 O 3 and less than 0.1 weight % TiO 2 ( ¶¶ 0061-0062), ranges which substantially overlap the claimed ranges for those components in claim 8. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 9 , Toncelli teaches wherein the glass composition is white or near white (L > 95) ( ¶ 0059). Regarding claim 10, Toncelli teaches a content range of SiO 2 that is greater than 48 weight % and less than 73 weight % ( ¶ 0040); this range substantially overlaps the claimed range of less than 65 weight % in claim 10. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 20 , Toncelli teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Toncelli teaches wherein the glass composition is white or near white (L > 95) ( ¶ 0059). Given the substantially identical composition of the Toncelli glass composition compared to the claimed invention, and given that Toncelli teaches wherein the glass composition has a CIELAB colorimetric parameter (L) of greater than 95, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the glass composition of Toncelli also necessarily satisfies the other recited colorimetric parameters recited in claim 20, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)) . 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). Claim s 3- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olds. Regarding claim 3, Olds discloses the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Moreover, Olds teaches a number of example compositions that comprise component amounts that fall within or very close to the claimed ranges in claim 3, as summarized in Table E below. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph) . Table E Component Claim 3 Olds Sample Numbers (Table 4) (wt.%) 61 62 63 68 CaO 29 – 30 30.3 29.5 31.1 30.97 MgO 0 – 6 6.64 7.70 5.28 2.60 SiO 2 60 – 65 62.5 62.5 63.1 64.1 Impurities balance 0.04 0.05 0.04 1.25 Regarding claim 4, Olds discloses the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Olds discloses Sample No. 69, which comprises 64.1 weight % SiO 2 , 28.6 weight % CaO , and 4.83 weight % MgO, the balance (1.49 weight %) being unavoidable impurities (see Table 4); these values are very close to the claimed component amounts in claim 4. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph) . Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonami . Regarding claim 7 , Nonami discloses the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Moreover, Nonami discloses that the glass composition (Example E 7), after undergoing heat treatment, comprised diopside (Col. 21, lines 22-24 and Table 2). Nonami also teaches that the degree of crystallization in the glass composition may be adjusted by altering the duration (“holding time”) of the crystallization heat treatment (see Col. 16, lines 41-46 and 62-63). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, guided by the teachings of Nonami , would have found it obvious through routine optimization to adjust the glass preparation process by optimizing the duration of the crystallization heat treatment such that diopside would be present in the glass composition in trace amounts. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olds or, in the alternative, over Olds in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019 / 0062197 to Otter et al. (hereinafter “Otter”). Regarding claim 11, Olds discloses the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Olds teaches that the “various pure oxides or less pure raw materials are granulated to a size commonly used for electric melting or they may be purchased already so granulated” (Col. 4, lines 38-41). Given the teachings of Olds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , in preparing the glass composition, to use raw materials having particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) , or ha ving a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) . Where the prior art discloses a claimed composition, it is generally not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of component sizes by routine experimentation , absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (changes in size are not sufficient to distinguish over prior art). Alternatively, although Olds does not explicitly teach wherein the glass composition has a particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) , or has a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) , Otter, in the closely related field of endeavor of quartz glass body preparation, teaches a process for preparing a glass body from silicon dioxide granulate, wherein the process involves screening out particles of silicon dioxide granulate less than 90 μ m in size and sieving out particles of silicon dioxide granulate more than 500 μ m in size (see ¶¶ 0350-0351; claim 32). Otter thus teaches a particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 9 0 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) ; this range substantially overlaps the first alternate claimed range in claim 11. Design incentives—such as the desire for raw material particles with good handlability and a low content of fine dust (which can be damaging to equipment and to human lungs), a desire for raw material particles that are easily stored and transported, and a desire to form a glass that is substantially free of bubbles (see Otter at ¶¶ 0033–0036)—would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Otter and to adapt the teachings of Otter to the glass composition of Olds . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Olds by employing glass composition raw materials with a particle size distribution as taught by Otter, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(F). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonami or, in the alternative, over Nonami in view of Otter. Regarding claim 11, Nonami discloses the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Given the teachings of Nonami , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in preparing the glass composition, to use raw materials having particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) , or ha ving a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) . Where the prior art discloses a claimed composition, it is generally not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of component sizes by routine experimentation , absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (changes in size are not sufficient to distinguish over prior art). Alternatively, although Nonami does not explicitly teach wherein the glass composition has a particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) , or has a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) , Otter, in the closely related field of endeavor of quartz glass body preparation, teaches a process for preparing a glass body from silicon dioxide granulate, wherein the process involves screening out particles of silicon dioxide granulate less than 90 μ m in size and sieving out particles of silicon dioxide granulate more than 500 μ m in size (see ¶¶ 0350-0351; claim 32). Otter thus teaches a particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 9 0 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) ; this range substantially overlaps the first alternate claimed range in claim 11. Design incentives—such as the desire for raw material particles with good handlability and a low content of fine dust (which can be damaging to equipment and to human lungs), a desire for raw material particles that are easily stored and transported, and a desire to form a glass that is substantially free of bubbles (see Otter at ¶¶ 0033–0036)—would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Otter and to adapt the teachings of Otter to the glass composition of Nonami . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Nonami by employing glass composition raw materials with a particle size distribution as taught by Otter, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(F). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toncelli or, in the alternative, over Toncelli in view of Otter. Regarding claim 11 , Toncelli discloses the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Given the teachings of Toncelli , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in preparing the glass composition, to use raw materials having particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) , or ha ving a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) . Where the prior art discloses a claimed composition, it is generally not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of component sizes by routine experimentation , absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges. In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (changes in size are not sufficient to distinguish over prior art). Alternatively, although Toncelli does not explicitly teach wherein the glass composition has a particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 100 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) , or has a particle size distribution with a maximum particle size of 45 μ m (in the form of a flour) , Otter, in the closely related field of endeavor of quartz glass body preparation, teaches a process for preparing a glass body from silicon dioxide granulate, wherein the process involves screening out particles of silicon dioxide granulate less than 90 μ m in size and sieving out particles of silicon dioxide granulate more than 500 μ m in size (see ¶¶ 0350-0351; claim 32). Otter thus teaches a particle size distribution with a minimum particle size of 9 0 μ m and a maximum particle size of 500 μ m (in the form of a grit) ; this range substantially overlaps the first alternate claimed range in claim 11. Design incentives—such as the desire for raw material particles with good handlability and a low content of fine dust (which can be damaging to equipment and to human lungs), a desire for raw material particles that are easily stored and transported, and a desire to form a glass that is substantially free of bubbles (see Otter at ¶¶ 0033–0036)—would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Otter and to adapt the teachings of Otter to the glass composition of Toncelli . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Toncelli by employing glass composition raw materials with a particle size distribution as taught by Otter, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(F). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : U.S. Pat. No. 4,443,550 to Kume et al. (hereinafter “ Kume ”) discloses a glass composition (Abstract) comprising, in one embodiment, 40.0 weight % CaO , 4.0 weight % MgO, 51.5 weight % SiO 2 , 2.5 weight % B 2 O 3 , 1.0 weight % Li 2 O, and 1.0 weight % Al 2 O 3 (Table 1, Sample No. 14). Kume discloses that the glass composition comprises wollastonite (Abstract and Table 1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703) 756-5425 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT . 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 AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /P.A.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /JENNIFER A SMITH/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731