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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01 April, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the amendments to the claims, the previously raised claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Xia teaches that each cable 16 includes a single grating structure formed by a series of modulations while multiple cables 16 are used to form multiple sensors 14.
This argument is unpersuasive because Xia teaches multiple embodiments, including distributed sensing systems having multiple grating structures, such that the fiber core and fiber cladding form a plurality of sensors detecting a same phenomenon each at a discrete position along the axis, e.g. Fig. 24. The rejection has been updated in view of the newly added limitations below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed specification does not provide support for the newly added claim limitation of claim 19 “a plurality of optical arrays extending into the reactor core and completely isolated from a coolant flowing through the reactor core”. Paragraph 0030 of the specification does not disclose the plurality of optical arrays being isolated from coolant, as suggested by Applicant in Remarks filed on 01 April, 2026, nor does any other part of the original specification. Therefore, claim 19 contains new matter and fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 20 inherently contains all of the deficiencies of claim 19 due to its dependence on claim 19.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is unclear due to the presence of contradictory limitations. Claim 1 recites that the fiber cladding has a melting point above 1000 degrees C. Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, states that the fiber cladding includes at least one of silicone, fluoropolymers, and sapphire. While sapphire has a melting temperature above 1000 degrees C, polymers and silicone are known organic compounds that cannot have melting points at or above 1000 degrees C. Instead, these compounds are known to degrade instead of melt at high temperatures, so the silicone or fluoropolymers making up at least part of the cladding would contradict a cladding having a melting temperature above 1000 degrees C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tailor et al. (US 2022/0412834; hereinafter Tailor), as evidenced by Montanini et al. (US 2004/0152020; hereinafter Montanini).
Regarding claim 1: Tailor disclosesAn optical detector (Fig. 7a; alternatively, Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0005-0015), comprising: an optical array (Fig. 7a, fiber optic cable 200 is an optical array since it includes an array of sensors; alternatively, the prior art devices described in paragraphs 0005-0015 are considered optical arrays) including, a fiber core (Figs. 3 and 5, inner core 22 and silicone bead portions 30; alternatively, Fig. 1, fiber core 22) extending along an axis, and a fiber cladding (Figs. 3 and 5, cladding 24; alternatively, Fig. 1, cladding 24) directly around the fiber core.
Tailor further discloses
wherein the fiber core and fiber cladding form a plurality of sensors detecting a same phenomenon each at a discrete position along the axis (see paragraph 0058; alternatively, see paragraph 0012); and an interrogator in communication with the optical array (Fig. 7a, optical time domain reflectometer 36; alternatively, see paragraph 0009) and configured to translate energy from the sensors into sensed data unique for each of the positions (the OTDR is configured to do this; alternatively, the interrogator of paragraph 0009 is also configured to do this).
Tailor further describes a conventional optical fiber cable for such a sensor having core and cladding made of doped silica glass (see paragraph 0005). Silica glass has a melting temperature above 1000 degrees C (as evidenced by Montanini, paragraph 0022). As evidenced by Montanini, doped silica glasses having melting points above 1000 degrees C are known in the optical fiber art (see Montanini, paragraph 0051). Examiner notes that optical fibers made of silica with other common dopants also yield melting temperatures above 1000 degrees C. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a known suitable material for the core and cladding of the optical fiber, wherein the fiber core and fiber cladding maintain a melting temperature above 1000 degrees C, for example by selecting phosphorus doped silica and pure silica for the core and cladding, as a matter of obvious design choice, in order to provide optical confinement and refractive index matching to the silicone.
Additionally Tailor fails to explicitly teach that the detector lacks a mass separate from the sensors and configured to produce a temperature proportional to gamma flux incident on the mass for detection by the sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to omit such a mass, since it is not taught to be included, since there is no disclosed reason that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to include one, and since omitting such a mass would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the size of the detector.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Tailor teachesThe detector of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein at least one of the fiber core and fiber cladding include materials that undergo Raman, Brillouin, or Rayleigh scattering dependent on at least one of temperature and gamma flux encountered (see Tailor paragraphs 0013-0015), and wherein the interrogator emits light into the optical array that is backscattered to the interrogator by the Raman, Brillouin, or Rayleigh scattering (see Tailor paragraphs 0009 and paragraphs 0013-0015).
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0170823; hereinafter Xia).
Regarding claim 1: Xia discloses An optical detector (see Figs. 2 and 24), comprising: an optical array (Fig. 24, fiber sensing module 310) including, a fiber core (Fig. 2, core 32) extending along an axis, and a fiber cladding (Fig. 2, cladding 34) directly around the fiber core, wherein the fiber core and the fiber cladding have melting points above 1000 degrees C (paragraphs 0041-0042, core and cladding comprise quartz and silicon dioxide doped with fluorine or chlorine; these have melting points above 1000 degrees C), and wherein the fiber core and fiber cladding form a plurality of sensors detecting a same phenomenon each at a discrete position along the axis (see paragraph 0069).
Xia further teaches that parameters such as temperature, strain, and pressure can be sensed using techniques described in the disclosure (see paragraph 0069), and within the disclosure teaches that an interrogator receives reflective optical signals and translates energy from the sensors into sensed data unique for each of the positions (see paragraphs 0039 and 0063-0064 and Fig. 21). Based on this disclosed technique and the arrangement of FBG sensors on the cable 312, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique also disclosed by Xia, including an interrogator in communication with the optical array and configured to translate energy from the sensors into sensed data unique for each of the positions, in order to monitor the distribution of any of the suggested parameters, including temperature, strain, or pressure, in the environment of the cable.
Additionally, Xia fails to disclose that the device lacks a mass separate from the sensors and configured to produce a temperature proportional to the gamma flux incident on the mass for detection by the sensors. However, Xia also does not teach that one is included. Since it is not taught that a mass separate from the sensors and configured to produce a temperature proportional to the gamma flux incident on the mass for detection by the sensors is necessary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to not include such a mass in the Xia device, in order to minimize the overall size and cost of the detector.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Xia teaches the detector of claim 1, as applied above. Xia further discloses that the fiber cladding can also include sapphire, polyimide or silicone for protection (see paragraph 0048). Based on the embodiments disclosed by Xia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Xia Fig. 24 to include polyimide, silicon, or sapphire in the cladding, in order to better protect the detector. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Xia teachesThe detector of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein at least one of the fiber core and fiber cladding include materials that undergo Raman, Brillouin, or Rayleigh scattering dependent on at least one of temperature and gamma flux encountered (Rayleigh scattering inherently occurs in optical fibers made of silicon dioxide as a result of microscopic irregularities; the properties of the fiber are also temperature-dependent, e.g. temperature induced strain; that’s how the fiber optic sensors work to sense temperature; in other words, silicon dioxide is a material that undergoes Rayleigh scattering dependent on temperature), and wherein the interrogator emits light into the optical array that is backscattered to the interrogator by the Raman, Brillouin, or Rayleigh scattering (the interrogator emits light into the optical array, which is inherently backscattered to the interrogator by the Rayleigh scattering).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Xia teachesThe detector of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein each sensor is configured to emit the energy as electromagnetic energy dependent on at least one of a temperature, radiation flux, and strain of the optical array (see paragraphs 0069 and 0045).
Regarding claim 10: Xia disclosesA detector (see Figs. 2 and 24), comprising: an optical array (Fig. 24, fiber sensing module 310) including, a fiber core (Fig. 2, fiber core 32) extending along an axis, and a fiber cladding (Fig. 2, fiber cladding 34) directly around the fiber core.
Xia further discloses that the fiber core and fiber cladding form a plurality of sensors detecting a same phenomenon each at a discrete position along the axis (see paragraph 0069). Xia further discloses that the fiber cladding can also include sapphire, polyimide or silicone for protection (see paragraph 0048). Based on the embodiments disclosed by Xia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Xia Fig. 24 to include polyimide, silicon, or sapphire in the cladding, in order to better protect the detector.
Xia further teaches that parameters such as temperature, strain, and pressure can be sensed using techniques described in the disclosure (see paragraph 0069), and within the disclosure teaches that an interrogator receives reflective optical signals and translates energy from the sensors into sensed data unique for each of the positions (see paragraphs 0039 and 0063-0064). Based on this disclosed technique and the arrangement of FBG sensors on the cable 312, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique also disclosed by Xia, including an interrogator in communication with the optical array and configured to translate energy from the sensors into sensed data unique for each of the positions, in order to monitor the distribution of any of the suggested parameters, including temperature, strain, or pressure, in the environment of the cable.
Regarding claim 11: Modified Xia teachesThe detector of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the fiber core and fiber cladding are doped with a halogen, a rare earth element, or fused silica (paragraph 0041, cladding includes fluorine, a halogen).
Regarding claim 17: Modified Xia teachesThe detector of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein each sensor is configured to emit the energy as electromagnetic energy dependent on at least one of a temperature, radiation flux, and strain on the optical array (see paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Xia teaches the detector of claim 10, as applied above. Additionally, Xia fails to disclose that the device lacks a mass separate from the sensors and configured to produce a temperature proportional to the gamma flux incident on the mass for detection by the sensors. However, Xia also does not teach that one is included. Since it is not taught that a mass separate from the sensors and configured to produce a temperature proportional to the gamma flux incident on the mass for detection by the sensors is necessary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to not include such a mass in the Xia device, in order to minimize the overall size and cost of the detector.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0170823; hereinafter Xia) in view of Syracuse et al. (US 2004/0071185; hereinafter Syracuse).
Regarding claims 3 and 12: Modified Xia teaches the detector of claims 1 and 10, respectively, as applied above. Xia fails to disclose that at least one of the fiber core and the fiber cladding include a stimulated luminescent material that emits light in response to temperatures and/or gamma radiation. However, Syracuse, also related to temperature sensing in optical fibers, teaches using a stimulated luminescent material in order to produce luminescence of wavelength that changes according to the temperature of the sensor (see Syracuse paragraph 0025). In order to provide temperature sensing with a wavelength that is dependent on the temperature of the sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Xia device by including a stimulated luminescent material in at least one of the fiber core and the fiber cladding.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0170823; hereinafter Xia) in view of Syracuse et al. (US 2004/0071185; hereinafter Syracuse) and further in view of Yegingil et al. (US 2021/0251861; hereinafter Yegingil).
Modified Xia teaches the detector of claim 3, as applied above. Xia and Syracuse fail to teach carbon-doped aluminum oxide as the stimulated luminescent material. However, Yegingil teaches that carbon-doped aluminum oxide is a known stimulated luminescent material which can detect gamma radiation and provide high sensitivity and a response that is linear with dose over several orders of magnitude (see paragraph 0007). In order to detect gamma radiation in the optical fibers with high sensitivity and linear response, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Xia device by including carbon-doped aluminum oxide as a stimulated luminescent material in at least one of the fiber core and cladding.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0170823; hereinafter Xia) in view of McCarthy et al. (US Patent No. 7,421,162; hereinafter McCarthy).
Regarding claims 7 and 15: Xia teaches the detector of claim 1 and 10, respectively, as applied above. Xia further teaches that the number of sensors employed can be increased or reduced based upon a desired parameter of the environment (see paragraph 0062). The number of sensors in a fiber is a result effective variable since it determines the resolution one could obtain in measuring the parameter of interest along the fiber. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide at least 100 sensors in the fiber, 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 (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Modified Xia therefore teaches the claimed invention except that two alternating core materials are used for the grating instead of a core with regions of alternating core radius. McCarthy shows that a core with regions of alternating core radius is an equivalent structure in the art (see Figs. 2 and 9; col. 8, lines 50-end). Therefore, because these two gratings were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a grating having alternating regions with different core radii for a grating having a core made of alternating materials (See MPEP 2144.06). In making this modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained a fiber core including radial extensions of the fiber core into the cladding.
Regarding claims 8 and 16: Modified Xia teaches The detector of claims 7 and 15, respectively (as applied above), each sensor is configured to provide the energy from the extensions through reflection of electromagnetic radiation from the interrogator (electromagnetic radiation from the interrogator would be reflected by the radial extensions, “providing” the energy which is to be detected).
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0170823; hereinafter Xia) in view of Fiacco et al. (US Patent No. 11,500,149; hereinafter Fiacco).
Regarding claims 5 and 13: Modified Xia teaches the detector of claims 1 and 10, respectively, as applied above. Xia fails to teach that at least one of the fiber core and fiber cladding are doped with at least one of bromine and iodine. However, Fiacco, also related to optical fibers composed of silica with dopants to control the refractive index profile, teaches that bromine is a suitable dopant to modify the refractive index of silica glass (see col. 8, lines 8-26). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since it was taught to be a suitable updopant for silica optical fibers by Fiacco, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Xia detector by including bromine in at least one of the fiber core and fiber cladding in order to modify the refractive index profile of the fiber, as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 14: Modified Xia teachesThe detector of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein at least one of the fiber core and fiber cladding include materials that undergo Raman, Brillouin, or Rayleigh scattering dependent on at least one of temperature and gamma flux encountered (Rayleigh scattering inherently occurs in optical fibers made of silicon dioxide as a result of microscopic irregularities; the properties of the fiber are also temperature-dependent, e.g. temperature induced strain; that’s how the fiber optic sensors work to sense temperature; in other words, silicon dioxide is a material that undergoes Rayleigh scattering dependent on temperature), and wherein the interrogator emits light into the optical array that is backscattered to the interrogator by the Raman, Brillouin, or Rayleigh scattering (the interrogator emits light into the optical array, which is inherently backscattered to the interrogator by the Rayleigh scattering).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2011/0170823; hereinafter Xia) in view of World Nuclear Association (“Nuclear Power Reactors”, accessed June 2018 version via The Wayback Machine at URL https://web.archive.org/web/20180615083649/https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors; hereinafter world-nuclear.org) and further in view of Cunningham (US 2016/0133354; hereinafter Cunningham).
Regarding claim 19: Xia disclosesA nuclear reactor (see Fig. 24) comprising a plurality of optical arrays (Fig. 24, fiber-sensing array 316 is considered a plurality of optical arrays, since the arrays contain more than four fibers, and a plurality of components 314, 311, 313, 315, and 317; these are considered to comprises a plurality of optical arrays). Xia further discloses that the fiber core and fiber cladding form a plurality of sensors detecting a same phenomenon each at a discrete position along the axis (see Fig. 24 and
In the embodiment of Fig. 2, Xia shows the structure of an optical fiber including a fiber core extending along an axis (Fig. 2, fiber core 32) and fiber cladding (Fig. 2, cladding 34) directly around the fiber core. Figs. 2 and 24 are not explicitly disclosed in a single embodiment by Xia. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 24 such that the optical array of Fig. 24 includes the fiber structure of Fig. 2, since the optical array of Fig. 24 allows for parallelizing detection and the fiber of Fig. 2 allows the individual fibers to function at high temperature. Combining these features would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the benefits of both embodiments.
Xia fails to disclose that the reactor comprises a reactor core housing nuclear fuel and a reactor pressure vessel containing the reactor core and reactor coolant, and further fails to teach that the plurality of optical fibers extend into the reactor core and are completely isolated from a coolant flowing through the reactor core. However, a reactor core housing nuclear fuel and a reactor pressure vessel containing the reactor core and reactor coolant are conventionally included in nuclear reactor cores, as evidenced by world-nuclear.org (Components of a nuclear reactor). Since these are conventional components to include in a nuclear reactor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include them in the nuclear reactor of the Xia device. Providing fuel in a core, as well as a pressure vessel with coolant, would allow the nuclear reactor to function properly. In doing so, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the optical fibers such that the plurality of optical fibers would extend into the reactor core, since this would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor properties in the reactor core, and since this appears to be consistent with the Xia disclosure.
Additionally, Cunningham, also related to optical cables for use in nuclear reactors (see abstract), teaches a shield for protecting the fiber from heat as well as moisture, in order for the fiber to operate during a leak (see paragraph 0018). Such a shield would completely isolate the optical arrays within the reactor core from the reactor coolant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shield to the optical fibers of the plurality of optical arrays, in order to better protect the fibers in the harsh environment of a nuclear reactor core since it was taught by Cunningham.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Xia teachesThe nuclear reactor of claim 19 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of optical arrays all lack a mass separate from the sensors and configured to produce a temperature proportional to gamma flux incident on the mass for detection by the sensors, and wherein the optical arrays include at least one hundred of the sensors each at a discrete position along the axis, the reactor further comprising: an interrogator in communication with the optical array and configured to translate energy from the sensors into sensed data unique for each of the positions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights