Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/13/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process of making a glass handler, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 01/23/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Element 54 is not found in the drawings, as noted in the specification [0020], line 5.
Height h, width w, and thickness t is not found in the drawings, as noted in the specification [0038], lines 2-4.
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. 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 of the minor informalities listed below:
Fig. 1A through Fig. 1C should use upper case letters. Ex: Fig. 1A should read FIG. 1A
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 4, 6, 8, 9 – the examiner understands “from 10 to 40 percent” to be inclusive.
Regarding Claim 10 – the examiner understands “less than 90 percent” to be inclusive.
Examiner Note: The choice of X is an intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 X = the intended use “a glass handler holder”.
Claim 13 X = the intended use “to contact a hot glass surface”.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
“the holder”/ “the glass handler holder”
Claim 6 – “ at the interior”/”at an interior”
Claim 13 – “ the insert comprising”/”the non-metal insert comprising”
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 14 is/are 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 14 does not further limit claim 1 in regard to the glass holder. A description of what the holder is “operatively connected to” does not change the structure of the holder itself. The Examiner suggests a read of “ An automated hot glass handling system comprising a robot arm operatively connected to the holder of claim 1.”
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, , 7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in the IDS dated 01/13/2026) WO2013041067A1 by Andrysek (herein “Andrysek”) and in further view of
U.S. Patent 11,010, 504 by De Lange et. al. (herein “De Lange”).
Regarding Claim 1 Andrysek teaches,
A glass handler holder; Page 3, lines 19-24, “…the jaw holder of a takeout mechanism for glass products, in particular container glass…the subject of present invention consists of the fact that each holder…”
that comprises,
a connector that comprises at least one tab,
a body connected to the connector and extending toward a base
a base that includes an insert opening
comprising,
a lower surface and an upper surface
See Annotated Fig. 4 of Andrysek:
PNG
media_image1.png
875
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a glass handler holder comprising,
that includes weight-reducing openings formed in the connector, body, or base; Col 7 lines 19-20, Fig. 1/2/3/4, “The vertical part 3 of the holder 1 may be supplied below the stops 6 with weight reducing holes 7….by means of two weight reducing holes 7…”. Annotate Fig. 4 of Andrysek illustrates weight reducing holes 7 in the body.
While Andrysek teaches weight reduced glass takeout holder of the jaws made from metal or from steel (i.e. steel is a composite material) (Col 8 line 21), Andrysek fail to teach a glass handler holder comprising
a multi-layer composite
In an analogous effort to obtain light weight design options and weight reduction requirements (Col 1 lines 13-15, 26-28) De Lange teaches obtaining lightweight high structural performance, particularly for aerospace engineering applications (as one skilled on the art would know this includes heat resistant components for jet engines or re-entry vehicles) Further, De Lange teaches using additive manufacturing using a 3D printer to create components by forming successive layers of material into a structural component where the successive layers of material are built into a lattice structure (Figs. 3/4/5, Col 8 lines 8-12) from materials such as titanium, steel, and stainless steel (where steel and stainless steel are composite materials) (Col 9, line 47). As well, the lattice zones of the component (i.e. the entire component does not need to be created from the 3D Additive process where the lattice is created) may be determined by the printability of the printer and lattice structure density distribution (Col 9 lines 33-36), where the additive processes could be laser sintering or laser melting among others (Col 9 lines 36-40). Further, De Lange teaches varying size of the of the unit cell as well as the geometry size of the lattice (Col 1 lines 29-31).
De Lange teaches the claimed invention except for a glass handler holder. 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 method of De Lange to create a multi-layer composite that is used to form a lattice for the glass handler holder of Andrysek, as one would be motivated to do so to meet weight requirements for a structural component, as noted by De Lange (Col 8 lines 13-20).
Regarding Claim 2 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Andrysek teaches wherein,
the connector or body includes weight-reducing openings
Andrysek teaches Claim 2 previously in Claim 1 (See Annotated Fig. 4, element 7 which are weight reducing openings).
Regarding Claim 3 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Andrysek teaches weight reducing openings that represents a hole through the connector, Andrysek fails to teaches wherein,
the weight-reducing openings comprise a hollow space at an interior of the connector, body, or base .
De Lange teaches internal lattice structures previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.De Lange further teaches wherein,
the weight-reducing openings comprise lattice openings in a lattice structure; Col 1, lines 27-29, “Lattice structures are porous materials produced by repeating a unit cell throughout a structure…”
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 lattice structure with lattice openings of De Lange in the holder of Andrysek as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of meeting weight reduction requirements, as noted by De Lange (Col 1 line 26).
Regarding Claim 10 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
De Lange teaches wherein,
a bulk density of the holder is less than 90 percent of the material density of the holder; Col 3 lines 7-9, Col 6 lines 38-40, 45-47, “…the topology optimization optimizes the location and density of the lattice structure”, “…above a certain density threshold such as 80% the lattice cells cannot be printed….and bulk material should be printed…a BULK zone for densities above 80%”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of De Lange’s bulk density range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 12 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
multi-layer composite comprises a metal or metal alloy, a metal composite matrix, or a ceramic (Claim 11).
the multi-layer composite comprises a metal selected from: a titanium alloy, stainless steel, a nickel alloy, and an aluminum alloy (Claim 12).
De Lange teaches both claimed inventions in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the metals of De Lange in the glass handler holder of Andrysek, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of using temperature resistant materials for the glass handler holder. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know those materials are common temperature resistance materials used in the glass industry. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. . Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 13 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Andrysek teaches the holder of claim 1 comprising,
a non-metal insert held within the insert opening; Col 8 lines 23-24, “Insert 2 is fabricated of any material suitable for contact with hot glass of a temperature of approx.. 600°C, e.g. graphite composites…”
Claims 4-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in the
IDS dated 01/13/2026) WO2013041067A1 by Andrysek (herein “Andrysek”) and in further view of
U.S. Patent 11,010, 504 by De Lange et. al. (herein “De Lange”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
11,186,077 by O’Neill et. al (herein “O’Neill”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 3 above teach all of the limitations of claim 3.
While Andrysek teaches weight reducing through holes and De Lange teaches a density distribution of a lattice structure between 0% and 100% (Col 6 lines 25-30), the combination fails to teach,
from 10 to 40 percent weight-reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base.
O’Neill further teaches “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%” (Col 10, lines 43-48).
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body or base of the holder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base of the holder , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding Claim 5 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Andrysek teaches weight reducing openings in the holder itself and De Lange teaches a three- dimensional lattice structure within the composite which suggest irregular shaped lattice structures, where the lattice structure can be fabricated by a number of additive manufacturing techniques other than a 3D printer (Col 9 lines 36-42), the combination fails to specifically teach,
the weight-reducing openings comprise irregularly- shaped pores within the multi-layer composite;
In an analogous endeavor of producing decreased density/increased porosity structures (which in turn would reduce weight of the article) (Col 3 lines 1-2), O’Neill teaches,
a multi-layer composite structure comprising such metals such as titanium, titanium alloys, and stainless steel (Col 2 lines 55-67).
a lattice structure (Fig. 34B, Fig. 35).
an additive method for producing the structures in laser melting (Col 8 lines 31-33).
the method can be used to produce an article from the metals referred to which can be created to a desired shape and which may or may not require subsequent machining. Yet again, such an article can be produced so that it has a graded porosity of, e.g., non-porous through various degrees of porosity to the outer surface layer (Col 34 lines 66-67, Col 35 lines 1-5).
“The method may be applied to produce an all-porous structure using any of the aforementioned metal or metal alloys. Such structures can be used as finished or final products…” (Col 9 lines 49-51).
The above provide a nexus.
O’Neill teaches unit cells having an irregular structure; “The predetermined unit cells make take the shape of most regular or irregular structure. For example, the unit cells may be in the shape of a tetrahedron, dodecahedron or octahedron as well as other symmetrical structures. As mentioned, the unit cells may not have such uniformity and have an irregular shape.…” (Col 4 lines 56-61); “It is the object of the present invention to provide a method of fabricating porous and partially porous metallic structures with a known porosity…” (Col 3 lines 54-56);
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for a glass handler holder. 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 method of O’Neill to create irregularly shaped pores in the composite structure of the combination, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of to produce an irregular porous construct with a defined level of porosity”, as noted by O’Neill (Col 10 lines 17-19). Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 6 – Andrysek, De Lange, and O’Neill in the rejection of claim 5 above teach all of the limitations of claim 5.
O’Neill further teaches,
from 10 to 40 percent weight-reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base; Col 10, lines 43-48, “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%”.
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, the location of the weight reducing openings is a design criteria and just changes the shape of the glass handler holder elements and does not change the function. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 8 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of claim 7.
While De Lange teaches reduced weight as a reason to use a lattice structure (Col ; Col 1 lines 44-47, 26-27), De Lange fails to teach,
the lattice structure comprises from 10 to 40 percent weight-reducing openings
O’Neill further teaches “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%” (Col 10, lines 43-48)
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding Claim 9 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While De Lange teaches reduced weight as a reason to use a lattice structure (Col ; Col 1 lines 44-47, 26-27), De Lange fails to teach,
the holder comprises from 10 to 40 percent weight- reducing openings based on total volume of the holder.
O’Neill further teaches “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%” (Col 10, lines 43-48)
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings on the total volume of the holder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings on the total volume of the holder , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the percentage of weight reducing openings for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in the
IDS dated 01/13/2026) WO2013041067A1 by Andrysek (herein “Andrysek”) and in further view of
U.S. Patent 11,010, 504 by De Lange et. al. (herein “De Lange”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
11,186,077 by O’Neill et. al (herein “O’Neill”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 7,418,834 by Lang
(herein “Lang”).
Regarding Claim 14 – Andrysek, De Lange, and O’Neill in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Andrysek teaches a holder of jaw of a takeout mechanism for glass products
the connector operatively connected to a robot arm of an automated hot glass handling system.
In a similar endeavor of glass handler holders, Lang teaches a takeout jaw 10 with a connector area as to the combination. See Annotated Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
671
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 illustrates the takeout jaw on a robot lift arm 14. “ The number 10 represents a series of takeout jaws of the present invention, which are positioned above a series of hot bottles. The takeout jaws are connected to a lifting arm 14. Bottles 12 have just been removed from a bottle forming mold…”, Col 4 lines 23-27, Fig. 1 Fig.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect to the robot arm of Lang with the connector of Andrysek, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a typical production environment, as noted by Lang (Col 4 lines 21-22). End effectors attached to robot arms are a common industry practice, especially in the glass industry. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
USPGPUB 20130241222 teaches takeout jaw structure and non-metallic inserts
U.S. Patent 4,379,581 teaches takeout jaw structure and holder
U.S. Patent 4,506,923 teaches takeout jaw structure
U.S. Patent 6,241,448 teaches takeout jaw structure with robot arm
U.S. Patent 8,992,703 teaches multi-layer metal composite with lattice structure targeting density and porosity using metals such as titanium, titanium alloys and stainless steel.
U.S. Patent 10,525,688 teaches multi-layer metal composite with lattice structure targeting density and porosity using metals such as titanium, titanium alloys and stainless steel.
U.S. Patent 8,728,387 teaches multi-layer metal composite with lattice structure targeting density and porosity using metals such as titanium, titanium alloys and stainless steel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741