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
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "which holder has a hollow channel with an inner contour" is grammatically awkward, and should likely read as “[in] which [the] holder has a hollow channel with an inner contour”; the preposition “in” is the interpretation the examiner moves forward with. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, claims 4 and 11 recite the broad recitation "the extension length being in the range of 5 mm to 100 mm", and the claims also recite “and preferably at least 10 mm, and particularly preferably at least 20 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
Additional Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the subject matter of the claimed invention but is not used in any rejection. It is made of record to provide the applicant with additional information regarding the state of prior art in the field of invention.
1. Heraeus (US 6484540 B1) – teaches chamfered welding methods which help to motivate/justify the intermediate welding steps and insertion overlap ranges.
2. Heraeus 2 (US 11739019 B2) – teaches an adapter component with a plate-like adapter part connected to the upper end face and at least partially covering the circumference of the hole region with through holes extending through the adapter.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonda (JP 2018052775 A) in view of Pedrido (US 8132429 B2).
Regarding claim 1:
Gonda discloses a method for fabricating a multicore fiber (Title), comprising the following method steps:
providing an elongate base body (a segment of the body shown in Figure 5, as preform 10, a cylindrical base body) containing a glass cladding material (Figure 1 shows a top-down view of the multi-core fiber 2 cross section with clad portion 2b made of “quartz glass”) and:
having a first end (Figure 7/7A, end 4ca side), a second end (lower end/end portion 4cb side), a base body longitudinal axis (“A multi-core fiber is an optical fiber having a plurality of core portions extending along a longitudinal axis”), a base body lateral area (the examiner understands the ‘base body lateral area’ to be the ‘lateral area,’ of the base body, which is essentially the surface area), a radial base body cross-section (the examiner understands this to be an assertion that there is a cross section extending radially outwards from some center, which is shown in the cross sectional views as in Figures 1, 3, 7-11), a base body outer diameter (the cross section[s] show[s] that the outer body has some diameter) and at least two through-holes which extend through the base body along the base body longitudinal axis (Figure 1, there are at least 21 holes),
inserting a core rod containing a glass core material into the at least two through-holes, thereby forming a component ensemble (Figure 5, core preform[s] 6 inserted into through holes of the clad preform 10, which is described in step S103 in the flowchart of Figure 2 as, “an insertion step of inserting the core base material into each of the plurality of through holes of the clad base material is performed”; Figure 7 shows the result of the insertions in the through holes in a cross sectional view – this is what the examiner interprets to be the component ensemble)
drawing the component ensemble to form the multicore fiber or processing the component ensemble further to form a preform from which the multicore fiber is drawn (Figure 6 depicts drawing from the lower end through furnace 7 while a vacuum is applied on cylindrical member 5 at the top, corresponding to step S105 in the flowchart of Figure 2, “…and a drawing process for drawing the multi-core fiber is performed”),
the component ensemble being held by means of a holder made of glass (Figure 6, cylindrical member 5) which is connected to the base body in the region of the first end to form a welding contact surface (upper end 10a of clad preform 10 is welded to the holder, the interface of welding is the welding contact surface),
wherein a holder having an elongate hollow part is used, [in] which [the] holder has a hollow channel (Figure 6, cylindrical member 5 has a hollow internal portion, also seen in Figure 5).
Gonda does not teach that this holder is with an inner contour which is larger than a circumference of the hole region within which the through-holes lie completely or with at least 90% of their hole diameter, and which has a radial outer dimension which is greater than the base body.
Pedrido teaches a method for fabricating an optical fiber, wherein a component ensemble comprises inserting a primary optical fiber preform (Figure 5, 11) into an overcladding tube (12), holding the preform within the overcladding tube via an adjoiner (Figure 7, adjoiner 3).
Key mappings:
“holder”: Adjoiner 3 (Figures 5 and 7, holds primary preform 11 in a centralized position and seals the interior space)
“Elongate hollow part with hollow channel”: Adjoiner 3 has cylindrical opening 31 (with diameter d3) receiving primary preform 11, plus evacuation channels 32 and 33 (Figures 7-9 show the sectional views)
“Inner contour LARGER than hole region circumference”: first evacuation channel 32 has a diameter d5 larger than the diameter d3 of the adjoining cylindrical opening 31, d3 correspond to d1 (primary preform outer diameter), which defines the boundary of the core working area. d5 clears the entire preform core region in diameter (Figure 9).
Crucially, Pedrido teaches that the first excavation channel 32 (Figure 9) is arranged concentrically to the primary axis x3 of the adjoiner 3 with a diameter d5 that is LARGER than the diameter d3 of the adjoining cylindrical opening. This teaches that the holder (adjoiner) is with an inner contour (d5) which is larger than a circumference of the hole region (d3) within which the through hole lies completely or with at least 90% of the hole diameter (Figure 9).
Pedrido also teaches that the radial outer dimension of the holder is greater than that of the base body (Figures 8 and 9, cylindrical segments 35 have diameter d4 which corresponds to the diameter d2 of overcladding tube 12 in Figure 7l; d2 is significantly greater than d1, “The ratio d2/d1 of the inner diameter d2 of the overcladding tube 12 and the outer diameter d1 of the primary preform 11 is for example in the range of 1.5 up to 5 and more,” teaching the limitation).
Gonda identifies that when the cylindrical member’s inner diameter is smaller than the circumscribed circle of the outermost through-holes, those outer holes are blocked, requiring communication grooves (element 4b) as a workaround – an added manufacturing complexity.
Pedrido teaches the principle of sizing the inner bore of a holder element (channel 32 with diameter d5) larger than the core working area (opening 31, diameter d3) to ensure complete and unobstructed access for evacuation (Figure 9 illustrates this nicely).
The principle of providing full clearance applies regardless of whether the core region contains a single preform (Pedrido) or a plurality of through holes (Gonda).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of Gonda under the teachings of Pedrido to enlarge the inner opening of Gonda’s cylindrical member 5 to be larger than the circumscribed circle of the outermost through-holes, removing the need for communication grooves while maintaining a low pressure/vacuum environment. This may be accomplished using routine design oversight from a skilled artisan (making a diameter larger rather than smaller), and would predictably result in a device which requires fewer components while providing unobstructed vacuum access to all through holes.
Regarding claim 2:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the welding contact surface, preferably the entire welding contact surface, is produced before the core rods are inserted (Figure 2, S102 in the flowchart explicitly states that connecting the cylindrical member happens before S103, the insertion of the core preforms).
Regarding claim 3:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the method according to claim 1.
While Gonda teaches that cylindrical member 5 is welded at the end face 10a of clad preform 10, it does not establish that welding is along the lateral (outer) surface of the surface, thus, does not establish that at least a portion of the welding contact surface is generated on the base body lateral area.
Pedrido teaches the sleeve/insertion configuration (Figure 7, the preform 11 inserts into the adjoiner 3), but does not teach that it is welded.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Gonda and Pedrido to weld the sleeve geometry instead of utilizing the O-rings in Pedrido. As per claim 1, the preform 11 is inserted into the adjoiner, which is identical to the instant application, they merely need to be welded as is already taught in Gonda. A skilled artisan would find this to be an obvious modification as it requires fewer components within the device and does not require any welding techniques beyond the knowledge of a skilled artisan. Additionally, the skilled artisan would weld because Gonda’s multicore fiber requires a vacuum-tight glass fusion between the holder/adjoiner and the preform for high temperature processing, and even the O-ring configuration is not as robust as weld. As such, the device would predictably benefit from an even stronger connection, allowing for the use of vacuum/low pressure application during the drawing process.
Regarding claim 4:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the method according to claim 3.
Gonda does not teach that the welding contact surface extends on the base body lateral area along an extension length in the direction of the base body longitudinal axis, the extension length being in the range of 5 mm to 100 mm, and preferably at least 10 mm, and particularly preferably at least 20 mm.
Pedrido teaches the axial overlap length between preform and adjoiner’s cylindrical opening 31 is determined by physical insertion depth, and Figure 7 depicts a substantial overlap region.
The specific range of 5-100 mm is a results-effective variable. The overlap length controls the weld contact area and joint strength, as well as the alignment and centering of the base body within the holder (these are already established as explicit goals of the adjoining element). A skilled artisan would optimize the insertion depth based on the base body weight and the required bonding strength.
Per MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine experimentation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Pedrido to have an extension length between 5-100 mm, as the depth of insertion determines known results-effective variables that a skilled artisan would only have to engage in routine experimentation to find the optimal values for. The modulation of insertion depth could be performed using methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which has an optimally robust and centered connection between the holder/adjoiner and preform.
Regarding claim 5:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the method according to claim 3.
Gonda is silent on a circumferential step or bevel.
Pedrido teaches that the contact surface comprises at least one circumferential step and/or at least one circumferential bevel over the extension length (Figure 7, for example, shows that the base body/preform 11 is inserted into the hollow channel, and a circumferential step exists over the extension length as a right-angle at the bottom of the overlap zone).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Pedrido to include a circumferential step over the extension length of the base body. This may be accomplished using methods known to the art (beveling and step boring are well established methods that can be accomplished through etching, drilling, or molding), and would predictably result in a connecting interface which securely facilitate insertion and improve weld quality.
Regarding claim 6:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein
the welding contact surface is generated on a first, upper base body end face (Figure 4, the cylindrical member 5 is welded to the end face of clad preform 10).
Gonda does not teach welding of the base body lateral area.
Pedrido teaches later surface contact from insertion/overlap geometry (as established in the rejection of claim 3).
The modified invention has the base body inserted into a hollow channel (Pedrido configuration) with Gonda’s welding applied. The weld naturally spans both the lateral area (inner wall of the hollow part contacting the surface of the base body along the overlap zone), and the end face (the base body’s upper face contacts inner shoulder/bottom of the hollow channel).
The natural result of the combination is an insertion/sleeve joint, weld contact covers both the axial overlap and the end face. No additional modification beyond what is established for claims 1 and 3 is needed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Pedrido to ensure that the welding includes both the end face and the base body lateral area. This is a natural result of the established combination and a necessary step to ensure that the weld is meaningful in the context of the problem being addressed – a need to maintain a vacuum-tight connection for the formation of the MCF. This design choice is an inherent result of the contact between the body and the holder/adjoining member, and predictably conserves the vacuum/low pressure sealing effect that enables the function of the device without altering the function of the claimed invention or introducing undue effects.
Regarding claim 9:
Gonda discloses a semifinished product for fabricating a multicore fiber (Title, manufacture of a preform by definition makes it a semifinished product), comprising:
A base body (a segment of the body shown in Figure 5, as preform 10, a cylindrical base body) containing a glass cladding material (Figure 1 shows a top-down view of the multi-core fiber 2 cross section with clad portion 2b made of “quartz glass”) and having a first end (Figure 7/7A, end 4ca side), a second end (lower end/end portion 4cb side), a base body longitudinal axis (“A multi-core fiber is an optical fiber having a plurality of core portions extending along a longitudinal axis”), a base body lateral area (the examiner understands the ‘base body lateral area’ to be the ‘lateral area,’ of the base body, which is essentially the surface area), a radial base body cross-section (the examiner understands this to be an assertion that there is a cross section extending radially outwards from some center, which is shown in the cross sectional views as in Figures 1, 3, 7-11), a base body outer diameter (the cross section[s] show[s] that the outer body has some diameter);
At least two through holes distributed over the base body cross-section for receiving core rods which each have a hole diameter, and which extend through the base body along the base body longitudinal axis (Figure 3, Figure 7, there are at least 21 through holes 4a which receive core rods), and
A holder made of glass (Figure 6, cylindrical member 5), which is connected to the base body in the region of the first end to form a welding contact surface (upper end 10a of clad preform 10 is welded to the holder, the interface of welding is the welding contact surface).
Gonda does not teach the elongate hollow part as claimed.
Pedrido teaches a method for fabricating an optical fiber, wherein a component ensemble comprises inserting a primary optical fiber preform (Figure 5, 11) into an overcladding tube (12), holding the preform within the overcladding tube via an adjoiner (Figure 7, adjoiner 3).
Key mappings:
“holder”: Adjoiner 3 (Figures 5 and 7, holds primary preform 11 in a centralized position and seals the interior space)
“Elongate hollow part with hollow channel”: Adjoiner 3 has cylindrical opening 31 (with diameter d3) receiving primary preform 11, plus evacuation channels 32 and 33 (Figures 7-9 show the sectional views)
“radial outer dimension, which is greater than the base body outer diameter”: first evacuation channel 32 has a diameter d5 larger than the diameter d3 of the adjoining cylindrical opening 31, d3 correspond to d1 (primary preform outer diameter), which defines the boundary of the core working area. d5 clears the entire preform core region in diameter (Figure 9).
Pedrido teaches that the radial outer dimension of the holder is greater than that of the base body (Figures 8 and 9, cylindrical segments 35 have diameter d4 which corresponds to the diameter d2 of overcladding tube 12 in Figure 7l; d2 is significantly greater than d1, “The ratio d2/d1 of the inner diameter d2 of the overcladding tube 12 and the outer diameter d1 of the primary preform 11 is for example in the range of 1.5 up to 5 and more,” teaching the limitation that the through holes lie completely within the hole diameter).
Gonda identifies that when the cylindrical member’s inner diameter is smaller than the circumscribed circle of the outermost through-holes, those outer holes are blocked, requiring communication grooves (element 4b) as a workaround – an added manufacturing complexity.
Pedrido teaches the principle of sizing the inner bore of a holder element (channel 32 with diameter d5) larger than the core working area (opening 31, diameter d3) to ensure complete and unobstructed access for evacuation (Figure 9 illustrates this nicely).
The principle of providing full clearance applies regardless of whether the core region contains a single preform (Pedrido) or a plurality of through holes (Gonda).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of Gonda under the teachings of Pedrido to enlarge the inner opening of Gonda’s cylindrical member 5 to be larger than the circumscribed circle of the outermost through-holes, removing the need for communication grooves while maintaining a low pressure/vacuum environment. This may be accomplished using routine design oversight from a skilled artisan (making a diameter larger rather than smaller), and would predictably result in a device which requires fewer components while providing unobstructed vacuum access to all through holes.
Regarding claim 10:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the semifinished product according to claim 9.
While Gonda teaches that cylindrical member 5 is welded at the end face 10a of clad preform 10, it does not establish that welding is along the base lateral (outer) surface of the surface, thus, does not establish that at least a portion of the welding contact surface is generated on the base lateral area.
Pedrido teaches the sleeve/insertion configuration (Figure 7, the preform 11 inserts into the adjoiner 3), but does not teach that it is welded.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Gonda and Pedrido to weld the sleeve geometry instead of utilizing the O-rings in Pedrido. As per claim 9, the preform 11 is inserted into the adjoiner, which is identical to the instant application, they merely need to be welded as is already taught in Gonda. A skilled artisan would find this to be an obvious modification as it requires fewer components within the device and does not require any welding techniques beyond the knowledge of a skilled artisan. Additionally, the skilled artisan would weld because Gonda’s multicore fiber requires a vacuum-tight glass fusion between the holder/adjoiner and the preform for high temperature processing, and even the O-ring configuration is not as robust as weld. As such, the device would predictably benefit from an even stronger connection, allowing for the use of vacuum/low pressure application during the drawing process.
Regarding claim 11:
Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the semifinished product according to claim 9.
Gonda does not teach that the welding contact surface extends on the base body lateral area along an extension length in the direction of the base body longitudinal axis, the extension length being in the range of 5 mm to 100 mm, and preferably at least 10 mm, and particularly preferably at least 20 mm.
Pedrido teaches the axial overlap length between preform and adjoiner’s cylindrical opening 31 is determined by physical insertion depth, and Figure 7 depicts a substantial overlap region.
The specific range of 5-100 mm is a results-effective variable. The overlap length controls the weld contact area and joint strength, as well as the alignment and centering of the base body within the holder (these are already established as explicit goals of the adjoining element). A skilled artisan would optimize the insertion depth based on the base body weight and the required bonding strength.
Per MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine experimentation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 9 above under the teachings of Pedrido to have an extension length between 5-100 mm, as the depth of insertion determines known results-effective variables that a skilled artisan would only have to engage in routine experimentation to find the optimal values for. The modulation of insertion depth could be performed using methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which has an optimally robust and centered connection between the holder/adjoiner and preform.
Regarding claim 12:
-Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the semifinished product according to claim 11.
Gonda is silent on a circumferential step or bevel.
Pedrido teaches that the contact surface comprises at least one circumferential step and/or at least one circumferential bevel over the extension length (Figure 7, for example, shows that the base body/preform 11 is inserted into the hollow channel, and a circumferential step exists over the extension length as a right-angle at the bottom of the overlap zone).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 11 above under the teachings of Pedrido to include a circumferential step over the extension length of the base body. This may be accomplished using methods known to the art (beveling and step boring are well established methods that can be accomplished through etching, drilling, or molding), and would predictably result in a connecting interface which securely facilitate insertion and improve weld quality.
Regarding claim 13:
-Gonda in view of Pedrido teaches the semifinished product according to claim 9.
the welding contact surface is generated on a first, upper base body end face (Figure 4, the cylindrical member 5 is welded to the end face of clad preform 10).
Gonda does not teach welding of the base body lateral area.
Pedrido teaches later surface contact from insertion/overlap geometry (as established in the rejection of claim 3).
The modified invention has the base body inserted into a hollow channel (Pedrido configuration) with Gonda’s welding applied. The weld naturally spans both the lateral area (inner wall of the hollow part contacting the surface of the base body along the overlap zone), and the end face (the base body’s upper face contacts inner shoulder/bottom of the hollow channel).
The natural result of the combination is an insertion/sleeve joint, weld contact covers both the axial overlap and the end face. No additional modification beyond what is established for claims 1 and 3 is needed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 9 above under the teachings of Pedrido to ensure that the welding includes both the end face and the base body lateral area. This is a natural result of the established combination and a necessary step to ensure that the weld is meaningful in the context of the problem being addressed – a need to maintain a vacuum-tight connection for the formation of the MCF. This design choice is an inherent result of the contact between the body and the holder/adjoining member, and predictably conserves the vacuum/low pressure sealing effect that enables the function of the device without altering the function of the claimed invention or introducing undue effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14, and 8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 14: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest the use of an adapter part which is connected to the base body in the region of the upper end, which has a radial outer dimension which is greater than the base body outer diameter, and which is welded to the hollow cylindrical hollow part, as recited in the context of the method and apparatus of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
The closest prior art, Gonda (JP 2018052775 A) in view of Pedrido (US 8132429 B2), teaches connected a cylindrical member (holder/adjoiner) directly to the clad base material (base body). While Pedrido teaches and adjoiner element that interfaces between the primary preform and the overcladding tube, the adjoiner functions as the holder itself rather than as a separate intermediate adapter part disposed between the base body and the holder. The prior art of record does not provide motivation to interpose a discrete adapter part having a radial outer dimension greater than the base body outer diameter between the base body and the holder in the context of multicore fiber preform fabrication.
Regarding claims 8 and 15: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest a substantially plate-like adapter part connected to the upper end face of the base body, the plate-like adapter part at least partially covering the circumference of the hole region, and at least some of the through holes extending through the adapter part, as further recited in the context of claims 7 and 14. The concept of a plate-like adapter with through holes aligned with the base body’s core rod through-holes, serving as a structural bridge between a smaller-diameter base body and a larger-diameter holder while maintaining vacuum and insertion access to all core channels, represent a specific structural contribution not found in the prior art of record. While references like Heraeus 2 (US 11739019 B2) teach intermediate glass pieces (piece 19) positioned at the upper end of a preform assembly with bores for vacuum passage, such pieces are disclosed in the context of single core rod-in-cylinder assemblies and do not serve as diameter-bridging adapters with through-holes corresponding to a multicore fiber hole pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874