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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 01/23/2026:
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wnuk et al.
(US20040188345), and further in view of Gail et al. (US4470904).
Regarding claim 1, Wnuk teaches a filter unit for an extruder assembly (Abstract: a filter device, in particular for high-pressure applications in a molten polymer filtration; Figure 1),
comprising:
a support body (perforated support tube; Figure 1) with a hollow cylindrical wall section
(see annotated Figure 2 on pg. 13 of the Office Action mailed 12/19/2024) and a base section
(fixing piece 30; Figure 1) connected thereto (Abstract: the volume displacer 924) being a one-
piece component of the support tube (18) and the fixing piece (30) in the form of a handle
covering the volume displacer (24)),
wherein the support body has a central longitudinal axis (axis is parallel to length of
filter unit shown in Figure 1) and delimits an inner space ([0017] direction provided for passage
of the polymer melt, especially at high pressure values, extends from the exterior toward the
interior, initially by way of the support grid 20, then by way of the filter medium 16 and
perforations in the supporting tube 18 to the interior of the filter device),
wherein the hollow cylindrical wall section has a plurality of through openings extending
into the inner space (see annotated Figure 2 on pg. 13 of the Office Action mailed 12/19/2024)
and forms an outlet opening for a molten plastic opposite the base section ([0017] then by way
of the filter medium 16 and perforations in the supporting tube 18 to the interior of the filter
device, the polymer melt then leaving the filter device by way of the discharge opening 26 for
subsequent use after impurities have been removed from it in this manner); and
a displacement element (volume displacer 24; Figure 1) for displacing the molten plastic
which has entered the inner space, via the through openings, substantially in the direction of
the central longitudinal axis ([0016] The volume displacement component 24 is engaged by its tapering fluid conducting component in the supporting tube 18 and thus serves to even out the
polymer melt flow inside the supporting tube in the direction of the discharge opening 26 inside
the screw-in component 10).
However, Wnuk teaches the displacement element and the support body are configured
in one piece (Abstract: the volume displacer 924), and fails to teach the displacement element
and the support body are produced from one piece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a filter unit for an extruder assembly, Gail
teaches a displacement element (circumferential webs 35; Figure 1 and Figure 2) and support body (hollow cylindrical filter body 7; Figure 1 and Figure 2) are produced from one piece (col 2 line 10- 19). Producing the displacement element and support body in one piece forms a more rigid filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure (col 2 line 17-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the displacement element and the support body
of Wnuk be produced from one piece, as taught by Gail, for the benefit of forming a more rigid
filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure (see “Response to Arguments” below).
Regarding claim 2, Wnuk modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
Further, Wnuk teaches wherein the displacement element is arranged or configured in the
inner space (see volume displacer 24 within perforated support tube 18 in Figure 1 and [0016]
The volume displacement component 24 is engaged by its tapering fluid conducting component
in the supporting tube 18).
Regarding claim 3, Wnuk modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
Further, Wnuk teaches wherein the displacement element comprises at least one section and is
configured to be substantially conical and/or cone-shaped and/or partially cone-shaped and/or spherical and/or partially spherical at least in some sections, ([0016] The volume displacement
component 24 is engaged by its tapering fluid conducting component in the supporting tube 18;
see volume displacement component 24 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wnuk modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
Further, Wnuk teaches wherein the displacement element is arranged or configured to be
concentric to the central longitudinal axis (the volume displacement component 24 and central
longitudinal axis share a common center that follows the length of the filter unit shown in
Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Wnuk modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
Further, Wnuk teaches wherein the displacement element has a surface with one or more
surface sections, wherein the one or more surface sections taper in the direction of the central
longitudinal axis ([0016] The volume displacement component 24 is engaged by its tapering
fluid conducting component in the supporting tube 18; see volume displacement component 24
in Figure 1; see volume displacement component 24 comprising a taper that extends parallel to
the length of the filter unit shown in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Moser et al. (US20180117504), and further in view of Gail et al. (US4470904).
Regarding claim 1, Moser teaches a filter unit for an extruder assembly (polymer melt
filter support 100; Figure 14), comprising:
a support body with a hollow cylindrical wall section (hollow cylindrical body 101; Figure
15) and a base section (base 704; Figure 7) connected thereto ([0078]),
wherein the support body has a central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis is
parallel to length of hollow cylindrical body 101 shown in Figure 15) and delimits an inner space
([0059] The second end portion 106 of the cylinder wall 104 includes a plurality of holes 108.
The holes 108 extend through the cylinder wall 104 so as to allow a polymer melt from outside
of the body 101 to flow inside of the body 101),
wherein the hollow cylindrical wall section has a plurality of through openings (holes
108; Figure 1 and 15) extending into the inner space and forms an outlet opening for a molten
plastic opposite the base section ([0059] The second end portion 106 of the cylinder wall 104
includes a plurality of holes 108. The holes 108 extend through the cylinder wall 104 so as to
allow a polymer melt from outside of the body 101 to flow inside of the body 101); and
a displacement element (cone insert 701; Figure 7 and 15) for displacing the molten
plastic which has entered the inner space, via the through openings, substantially in the
direction of the central longitudinal axis ([0075] the cone insert 701 includes a curved lateral
surface 703 towards, proximate, or adjacent to its base 704. The curved lateral surface 703
serves the function of gradually directing the inflow of polymer melt towards the center of the
cylindrical body 101).
However, Moser teaches the displacement element and the support body are
configured in one piece ([0078]- [0079]), and fails to teach the displacement element and the
support body are produced from one piece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a filter unit for an extruder assembly, Gail
teaches a displacement element (circumferential webs 35; Figure 1 and Figure 2) and support body (hollow cylindrical filter body 7; Figure 1 and Figure 2) are produced from one piece (col 2 line 10- 19). Producing the displacement element and support body in one piece forms a more rigid filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure (col 2 line 17-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the displacement element and the support body
of Moser be produced from one piece, as taught by Gail, for the benefit of forming a more rigid
filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure.
Regarding claim 7, Moser modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
While Moser teaches a diameter for the openings in Figure 6A and [0071], and that the through
openings have an outside surface area that is larger than an inside surface area ([0065] the size
or area of the openings 301 of the holes 108 on the outer surface of the cylinder wall 104 is
larger than the size or area of the openings 302 of the corresponding holes 108 on the inner
surface of the cylinder wall 104), Moser fails to teach wherein the through openings of the
hollow cylindrical wall section opening into the inner space all have a same diameter.
Further, Moser teaches that the larger outer openings increase the cross-sectional area
for the polymer melt to flow and be filtered such that the overall filtration efficiency is
increased ([0065] the larger size of the openings 301 on the outer wall surface increases the
cross-sectional area for the polymer melt to flow and be filtered, thereby increasing the overall
filtration efficiency of any filter that employs the filter support according to the invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the through openings of Moser
modified with Gail all have the same diameter, as shown in Figure 6A of Moser, to ensure a
homogeneous polymer melt flowing around the hollow cylindrical wall section to the displacement element, and for the known benefit of increasing the cross-sectional area for the
polymer melt to flow such that the overall filtration efficiency is increased.
Regarding claim 9, Moser modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
The active filter area of Moser is to be interpreted as the hollow area within the cylindrical
body, which is the inside diameter shown in annotated Figure 3 on pg. 16 of the Office Action
mailed 12/19/2024 times the height of the hollow cylindrical body. The casing surface area is
interpreted as the outside diameter multiplied by the height. Moser teaches in [0063] that
when an outside diameter is 1.75 inches, the cylinder wall 104 can have an inside diameter of 1
inch to 1.25 inches. Since the height is equivalent for the active filter area and the casing
surface area, a ratio of the active filter area to the casing surface area is interpreted as a ratio of
the inside diameter to the outside diameter. With an inside diameter of 1 inch and an outside
diameter of 1.75 inches, the ratio of an active filter area to a casing surface area is 1/1.75= 0.57.
Therefore, Moser teaches wherein the ratio of the active filter area to the casing surface area of
the support body is about 0.15 to 0.65.
Regarding claim 10, Moser modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim
1. The wall thickness of the support body of Moser is interpreted as the inside diameter
subtracted from the outside diameter shown in annotated Figure 3 on pg. 16 of the Office
Action mailed 12/19/2024. The outer diameter of the support body is interpreted as the
outside diameter shown in annotated Figure 3 on pg. 16 of the Office Action mailed
12/19/2024. Moser teaches in [0063] that when an outside diameter is 1.75 inches, the cylinder
wall 104 can have an inside diameter of 1 inch to 1.25 inches. Therefore, the wall thickness of
the support body can range from 0.5 inches to 0.75 inches. A ratio of a wall thickness of the support body of 0.5 inches to the outer diameter of 1.75 inches is 0.5/1.75= 0.28. Therefore,
Moser teaches wherein the ratio of the hollow cylindrical wall thickness of the support body to
an outer diameter of the support body is about 0.1 to 0.6.
Regarding claim 11, Moser teaches a filter arrangement (connecting channel 1603;
Figure 16) for an extruder assembly ([0095] Connecting channel 1603 is provided with a filter
plate assembly according to the invention; Figure 16 and 17) with a filter support (support plate
1604; Figure 17),
which has a support central longitudinal axis (axis is parallel to length of filters) and a
plurality of support through openings (plurality of threaded holes 1610; Figure 17) extending in
the direction of the support central longitudinal axis (see plurality of threaded holes 1610
extending in axis parallel to length of filters),
wherein in the region of each of the support through openings the filter unit of Moser
modified with Gail according to claim 1 is attached and/or can be attached respectively in a
detachable manner to the filter support ([0058] The screw thread 107 is adapted to engage and
securely hold the filter support 100 in place with threaded holes in a support plate 1604 (see
FIGS. 16-19)).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser et al.
(US20180117504) and Gail et al. (US4470904), and further in view of He (CN113352578A).
Regarding claim 8, Moser modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to claim 1.
However, Moser fails to teach wherein the support body and the displacement element are
produced from a substantially non-weldable steel.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a filter unit for an extruder assembly, He
teaches wherein the support body and the displacement element are produced from a
substantially non-weldable steel (“The filter screen plate 30 can be made of high-alloy steel,
with a proper heat treatment process”- see pg. 7 line 55). A hot work high-alloy steel provides a
strong load-bearing capacity at lower thicknesses (“the filter screen has a strong load-bearing
capacity, and there is no need to set a large thickness”- see pg. 2 line 42-43).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the support body and the displacement element
of Moser modified with Gail be produced from a hot work high-alloy steel, as taught by He, for
the benefit of providing a strong load-bearing capacity at lower thicknesses.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lambertus (US4597870), and further in view of Gail et al. (US4470904).
Regarding claim 1, Lambertus teaches a filter unit for an extruder assembly (Abstract: A
filter device for a screw extruder for the handling of molten plastic; Figure 1), comprising:
a support body (support member 28; Figure 1 and 2) with a hollow cylindrical wall
section (see annotated Figure 2 on pg. 19 of the Office Action mailed 12/19/2024 and col 4 line
23-24) and a base section (flange 8; Figure 1) connected thereto (col 3 line 31-34),
wherein the support body has a central longitudinal axis (central longitudinal axis is
parallel direction in which bore 2 in Figure 1 extends) and delimits an inner space (see inner
space holding conical deflector 23 in Figure 2 and col 4 line 18-25),
wherein the hollow cylindrical wall section has a plurality of through openings extending into the inner space (plurality of passages 27; Figure 1 and 2) and forms an outlet opening for a
molten plastic opposite the base section (col 4 line 18-21); and
a displacement element (conical deflector 23; Figure 1) for displacing the molten plastic
which has entered the inner space (col 4 line 11-15), via the through openings (col 4 line 18-21),
substantially in the direction of the central longitudinal axis (see molten plastic going through
inlet 5 and downward along central longitudinal axis direction towards outlet 6 in Figure 1).
However, Lambertus teaches the displacement element and the support body are
configured in one piece (see conical deflector 23 and support member 28 configured as one
piece through guide bores 11 in Figure 1), and fails to teach the displacement element and the
support body are produced from one piece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a filter unit for an extruder assembly, Gail
teaches a displacement element (circumferential webs 35; Figure 1 and Figure 2) and support body (hollow cylindrical filter body 7; Figure 1 and Figure 2) are produced from one piece (col 2 line 10-19). Producing the displacement element and support body in one piece forms a more rigid filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure (col 2 line 17-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the displacement element and the support body
of Lambertus be produced from one piece, as taught by Gail, for the benefit of forming a more
rigid filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure.
Regarding claim 5, Lambertus modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to
claim 1. Further, Lambertus teaches wherein the displacement element has a surface with one
or more surface sections, wherein the one or more surface sections taper in the direction of the
central longitudinal axis (see conical deflector 23 tapering toward bottom in Figure 1 and claim 8: “A filter device as claimed in claim 1 comprising a conical deflector in said slide projecting
into said passage, said deflector narrowing conically in the direction of flow of the molten
plastic”).
Regarding claim 6, Lambertus modified with Gail teaches the filter unit according to
claim 5. Further, Lambertus teaches wherein the plurality of surface sections or contour
sections comprise a radially outer surface section or contour section and a radially inner surface
section or contour section, wherein the radially outer surface section or contour section and
radially inner surface section or contour section extend at different angles obliquely and/or
relative to the central longitudinal axis, wherein the angle of the radially outer surface section
or contour section is greater than the angle of the radially inner surface section or contour
section (see annotated Figure 1 on pg. 20 of the Office Action mailed 12/19/2024 where the
radially outer surface section has a 90 degree angle with the central longitudinal axis and the
radially inner surface section has an angle less than 90 degrees due to the tapering shape;
MPEP 2125 notes that drawings can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is
claimed).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samann
(US20130020247), and further in view of Wnuk et al. (US20040188345) and Gail et al.
(US4470904).
Regarding claim 12, Samann teaches a filter changing device (sieve changing device 18;
Figure 3) for an extruder assembly, comprising:
a housing (housing 21; Figure 3);
at least one melt channel (melt channel 22 ; Figure 3) extending in the housing ([0035]
The sieve changing device 18 has a housing 21, in which a melt channel 22 running in the
conveying direction 9 for the plastics material melt produced in the extruder 2 is formed);
at least one guide bore (guide bore 23; Figure 3) extending transversely to the at least
one melt channel and through the at least one melt channel in the housing ([0035] a guide bore
23 running transverse to the conveying direction 9 and crossing the melt channel 22 is formed
in the housing 21);
at least one slide element (plate-like slide element 24; Figure 3) arranged in the at least
one guide bore ([0035] A plate-like slide element 24, which can be displaced by means of an
actuating drive 25 transverse to the conveying direction 9, is arranged in the guide bore 23);
and
at least two filter arrangements ([0035] Two continuous receiving openings 26, 27, in
which a filter arrangement 28, 29 is mounted in each case; Figure 4) which have a support
central longitudinal axis (carrier centre longitudinal axis 31; Figure 4) and a plurality of support
through openings extending in the direction of the support central longitudinal axis ([0036] A
plurality of carrier through-openings 32, 33, 34 running in the direction of the carrier centre
longitudinal axis 31 are formed in the filter carrier 30), wherein in the region of each of the
support through openings a filter unit is attached and/or can be attached respectively in a
detachable manner to the filter support ([0037] A filter unit 35 is in each case releasably
fastened to the filter carrier 30 in the region of the carrier through-openings 32, 33, 34. The
filter units 35 are arranged before the filter carrier 30 in the conveying direction 9),
wherein the filter unit comprises a support body (outer support body 3; Figure 7 and 8) with a hollow cylindrical wall section (see wall of interior 42 in Figure 7) and a base section
(second portion 52; Figure 8) connected thereto, wherein the support body has a central
longitudinal axis (centre longitudinal axis 41; Figure 8) and delimits an inner space (interior 42; Figure 7), wherein the hollow cylindrical wall section has a plurality of through openings
extending into the inner space (outer through-openings 45; Figure 8) and forms an outlet
opening for a molten plastic opposite the base section ([0049] The plastics material melt at
each filter unit 35 thus, on the one hand, passes in a first melt flow direction 74 through the
outer filter element 37 and the through-openings 45 of the outer support body 36 into the
interior 42),
wherein the filter arrangement is arranged and/or mounted spaced apart on the at least
one slide element ([0027] FIG. 4 shows a partially sectional view of the sieve changing device in
FIG. 3 with two spaced-apart filter arrangements and filter units arranged thereon).
However, Samann fails to teach the filter unit comprises a displacement element for
displacing the molten plastic which has entered the inner space via the through openings,
substantially in the direction of the central longitudinal axis.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a filter unit for an extruder assembly, Wnuk
teaches a displacement element (volume displacer 24; Figure 1) for displacing the molten
plastic which has entered the inner space via the through openings, substantially in the
direction of the central longitudinal axis ([0016] The volume displacement component 24 is
engaged by its tapering fluid conducting component in the supporting tube 18 and thus serves
to even out the polymer melt flow inside the supporting tube in the direction of the
discharge opening 26 inside the screw-in component 10).
The displacement element of Wnuk ensures a homogeneous polymer melt flow in the
interior of the support body ([0016] The volume displacement component 24 is engaged by its
tapering fluid conducting component in the supporting tube 18 and thus serves to even out the
polymer melt flow inside the supporting tube in the direction of the discharge opening 26 inside
the screw-in component 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art modify the filter unit of Samnann to comprise the
displacement element of Wnuk, for the benefit of ensuring a homogeneous polymer melt flow
in the interior of the support body.
However, Wnuk teaches the displacement element and the support body are configured
in one piece (Abstract: the volume displacer 924), and fails to teach the displacement element
and the support body are produced from one piece.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a filter unit for an extruder assembly, Gail
teaches a displacement element (circumferential webs 35; Figure 1 and Figure 2) and support body (hollow cylindrical filter body 7; Figure 1 and Figure 2) are produced from one piece (col 2 line 10-19). Producing the displacement element and support body in one piece forms a more rigid filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure (col 2 line 17-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the displacement element and the support body
of Samnann modified with Wnuk produced from one piece, as taught by Gail, for the benefit of
forming a more rigid filter unit that can be loaded with a higher interior pressure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Gail does not teach or suggest that the displacement element and the support body are produced from one piece (see pg. 6 of Remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gail teaches a support body (hollow cylindrical filter body 7; Figure 1 and Figure 2) and a displacement element (circumferential webs 35; Figure 1 and Figure 2) for displacing molten plastic by conducting contact pressure forces on scrapers (col 9 line 24-27) which transport the molten plastic (col 8 line 42-46).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Gail with Wnuk, Moser, or Lambertus since Gail relates to a different filtering technique (see pg. 6-7 or Remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness by modifying the operating mechanism of the filter of Wnuk, Moser, or Lambertus. Rather, Examiner states that it would have been obvious for the multiple components of Wnuk, Moser, or Lambertus to be formed from one component for the benefit of forming filters that can withstand higher operating pressures.
Wnuk teaches a filter unit for high-pressure applications in filtering molten polymers in an extruder assembly (see Wnuk Abstract: “The invention relates to a filter device, in particular for high-pressure applications in a molten polymer filtration”), Moser teaches the filter may be made of a material capable of withstanding relatively high temperatures and pressures ([0061] The cylindrical body 101 may be made of any material that can withstand the conditions inside of a filtering apparatus for a polymer melt over an extended period of time. Such conditions include operating temperatures of up to 400° C. and operating pressures of up to 7,500 psi (or approximately 50 MPa), and Lambertus teaches the polymer melt is under pressure forces (col 1 line 66- col 2 line 2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would look to the teachings of Gail to form a molten polymer filter unit for an extruder assembly that is capable of withstanding relatively high interior operating pressures by forming a unitary filter piece.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743