Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Fig. 4 has the Y-axis label in the unit MPa-s. The Examiner believes it was intended to read mPa-s
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0059] and [0060] recite the unit MPa-s. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to recite mPa-s.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Claim 20 recites the structural limitation “the aperture of the nozzle comprises a stepped surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,837,824
(as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Siegmund (herein “Siegmund”) and in further view of
NPL “Significant suppression of Rayleigh scattering loss in silica glass formed by compression of its
melted phase” (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Ono et. al. (herein “Ono”).
Regarding Claim 1, Siegmund teaches a method of forming an optical fiber, the method comprising:
heating a forming region of the optical fiber preform; Fig 1. Fig. 2, Col 3 lines 3-5, Col 3 lines 59-64 “The lowermost end 32 of bundle 14 is directed through heating zone 32 (sic. 34) produced by an annular heating element 36, preferably electrically operated”, “..and the depending end of the bundle 14 located within the heating zone 34 of element 36….heating element 36 would then be activated to heat the adjacent end of the bundle”. Fig.1 illustrates element 36 heating the end bundle 32. Fig. 2 illustrates the optical fiber preform.
within a pressure device; Col 2, lines 23-25,“Apparatus 10 for heating and drawing bundles of optical fibers according to the present invention includes a tubular pressure chamber 12”
directing the optical fiber preform in a downstream direction along a process pathway to form the optical fiber; Col 3 lines 55-61, 63-65, Col 4 lines 37-46, Col 6 lines 1-3, “…rod 22 and bundle 16 are inserted upwardly into chamber 12 through heating element 36 to the extent of causing rod 22 to pass through gland 24 for connection to arm 28. With rod 22 connected to arm 28 and the depending end of bundle 14 located within heating zone 34 of element 36, as controlled by operation of the lead screw 30, …the heated end of bundle 14 would then be baited and drawn downwardly ..” Here, screw 30 directs the optical fiber preform downward and then a bait action draws the optical fiber preform downward further. “Furthermore, the pressure chamber 12 and its associated components are readily adaptable to auxiliary use in conventional optical monofilament….fiber drawing apparatuses…”, “including the step of continuously lowering said bundle of fibers during said further drawing thereof”.
and traversing the optical fiber through an aperture of a nozzle; See Annotated combination Fig.
1.Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and traversing the optical fiber through an aperture of a nozzle to maintain the total pressure of about 500 atm or greater within the pressure device; Col 3 lines 19-24, Col 5 lines 2-5, “with fluid gland 42 (nozzle) which permits free passage of the multiple fiber component 18 therethrough while simultaneously sealing cover 40 against leakage of high pressure air or gases”, “ to a desired final length of multiple fiber component while maintaining sufficient liquid in said gland means for retaining said pressurization of said chamber.”
Siegmund teaches a total pressure of 5000lbs/in2 (340 atmospheres (atm), Col 4 lines 20-26) to prevent the growth of gas bubbles (i.e. voids in the glass fiber), as well as “drawing taking place under super atmospheric pressure for improving product quality by minimizing, if not elimination, of gas bubble formation, growth, and blemishing” but fails to teach,
while exposing the forming region to a total pressure of about 500 atm or greater and
traversing the optical fiber through an aperture of a nozzle to maintain the total pressure of about 500 atm or greater within the pressure device
In an analogous endeavor of eliminating voids in silica glass with intention to support silica glass optical fiber production, Ono teaches compressing silica glass rod samples (25mmØ x 60mm height) to 200MPa (~1974 atm) at 2073K (1800°C, i.e. a typical fiber draw process temperature depending on glass composition) (Page 7943, 2. Sample Preparation) in the effort to reduce voids in the glass, which are related to Rayleigh scattering (Page 7943, Para. 2), with the results showing reduced void size and increase pressure reduce Rayleigh scattering (Page 7945, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). Ono teaches the claimed invention except within a fiber draw furnace. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use greater than 500 atm, and up to 1974 atm, in principle the atmosphere value(s) of Ono in the method of Siegmund, as one would be motivated to reduce voids in the optical fiber of to reduce Rayleigh scattering, as noted by Ono (Page 7945, 5. Summary).
Regarding Claim 2 and 3, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the total pressure is about 1000 atm or greater (Claim 2)
the total pressure is from about 500 to 2000 atm (Claim 3)
Ono teaches Claim 2 and Claim 3 previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ono fails to teach wherein,
the total pressure is from about 750 atm to about 1750 atm.
From Claim 1 above Ono discloses the claimed invention except for the range of 750 atm to 1750atm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the value of the total pressure, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the total pressure for the purpose of controlling the process to meet technical requirements of the fiber. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 5, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Seigmund teaches wherein,
the forming region of the optical fiber preform is heated to a temperature at or above a softening temperature of the preform; Col 3 lines 5-8, “By such means, end 32 of bundle 14 is heated to a temperature suitable for drawing a multiple fiber component 18 from the bundle”. Heating an optical fiber preform to a temperature at or above a softening temperature of the preform is very common om the art. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Siegmund teaches,
the nozzle comprises a cylindrical member, and a tapered member, the tapered member having a taper angle Ɵ between about 1.5 degrees and about 35 degrees (Claim 16).
the taper angle Ɵ is between about 2 degrees and about 30 degrees (Claim 17).
Fig. 1 illustrates a gland 42 (nozzle) that has a cylindrical member (long extended area) and cup 46 at the top of the of the gland that has a taper. Siegmund discloses the claimed invention except for a specific value of the nozzle taper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the nozzle taper angle, which can be considered a result effective variable, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the nozzle taper angle for the purpose of ensuring the molten metal flows through the nozzle without clogging, as one in the art would know. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 20, Seigmund and Ono n the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the aperture of the nozzle comprises a stepped surface. Instant claim is rejected – see Claim Interpretation.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,837,824 (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Siegmund (herein “Siegmund”) and in further view of NPL “Significant suppression of Rayleigh scattering loss in silica glass formed by compression of its melted phase” (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Ono et. al. (herein “Ono”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20230212057A1 by Mukasa et. al (herein “Mukasa”)
Regarding Claim 6, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Seigmund teaches wherein a “temperature conducive to drawing”, (Col 3 lines 61-63), and Ono teaches a high pressure, the combination fails to teach,
the forming region of the optical fiber preform is heated to a temperature from about 1570°C to about 2100°C
In a similar endeavor as drawing optical fiber in a pressurized vessel, Mukasa teaches a fiber draw temperature of 2000°C [0006]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the temperature of Mukasa in the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of having the ability to adjust the outer diameter of the fiber by the pressure, as noted by Mukasa [0032]. Further, a temperature range of 1570°C to 2100°C is common in the industry of drawing optical fiber.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature range to be used in the forming region , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have optimized the temperature range to be used in the forming region for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the glass composition, furnace design and technical requirements. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,837,824 (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Siegmund (herein “Siegmund”) and in further view of NPL “Significant suppression of Rayleigh scattering loss in silica glass formed by compression of its melted phase” (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Ono et. al. (herein “Ono”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,853,258 by Gombert et. al. (herein “Gombert”).
Regarding Claim 7, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Seigmund teaches a nozzle with liquid (one of which is a water glass solution, Col 3 lines 25-28, where water glass can be considered an inorganic polymer) in an optical fiber draw furnace, where the nozzle inherently contains centration forces, Seigmund fails to teach,
the nozzle provides a centration force that centers the optical fiber about a centerline of the nozzle.
In a similar endeavor of drawing fiber through a nozzle containing a liquid, Gombert teaches the use of a fiber guide (nozzle) for centering a fiber whether the fiber is pulled through a molten metal or a polymer . “… the method of the invention used to make a continuous and a centered metallic coating around an optic fiber. The method has the advantage by which it is possible to deposit either the metal alone or the metal followed by another coating (such as a polymer) (Col 2 lines 61-66), “It is possible to show that, as a first estimate, the return force exerted on the fiber in a fiber guide (centering force) is proportionate to the viscosity of the liquid used for coating. Now, when changing from a polymer to a molten metal, there is a change from a viscosity of a few tens of poises to a few centipoises, as a result of which the centering force is reduced in the same ratio”, Col 3 lines 1-7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nozzle of Gombert in the process of the combination, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of having the ability to compensate for very small centering forces caused by low viscosity material as well as provide for a uniform coating, which is this case is a molten metal, as noted by Gombert (Col 3 lines 51-60).
Regarding Claim 8 and 9 (which depends on Claim 8), Seigmund, Ono and Gombert in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of claim 7.
Gombert teaches wherein,
the centration force is about 2 grams-force or greater (Claim 8)
the centration force is about 5 grams-force or greater (Claim 9)
Gombert discloses the claimed invention except for a specific value of the centration force. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the centration force, which can be considered a cause effective variable to align the fiber in the nozzle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the centration force depending on the material in the nozzle, as noted by Gombert (Col 3 lines 1-7). It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,837,824 (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Siegmund (herein “Siegmund”) and in further view of NPL “Significant suppression of Rayleigh scattering loss in silica glass formed by compression of its melted phase” (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Ono et. al. (herein “Ono”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,853,258 by Gombert et. al. (herein “Gombert”).
Regarding Claim 10, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Seigmund teaches the use of liquids in a nozzle such as high viscous sugar solution, waterglass solution, or viscous oil (Col 3 lines 25-30), but Seigmund fails to teach,
o heating a molten metal; Col 6 lines 37, 39 “Metal: indium” , “Temperature of metal: 160° C.”. Further the “Handbook of Heat Processing – Fundamentals – Calculations -Processes (2nd Edition)” Table 3.1, provides for indium melting temperature of 429.K = 156.45°C, therefore a molten metal is heated ~ 4°C.
o the molten metal being disposed within the nozzle and radially outward of the optical fiber; In a similar endeavor of drawing fiber through a nozzle containing a liquid, Gombert teaches the use fiber guide (nozzle) for centering a fiber whether the fiber is pulled through a molten metal or a polymer . “… the method of the invention used to make a continuous and a centered metallic coating around an optic fiber the instant claim. See Annotated Fig. 2 which illustrates molten metal in the nozzle 2 radially outward of optical fiber 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
629
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat a molten metal with the arrangement of the nozzle of Gombert and use in the process of the Siegmund, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of applying a coat to the fiber to meet the desired commercial requirements. In this case, an impervious metallic coating to prevent water to come in contact with the fiber, as noted by Gombert (Col 2 lines 27-28, Col 1 lines 44-45).
Regarding Claims 12, 13, and 14, Seigmund, Ono and Gombert in the rejection of claim 10 above teach all of the limitations of claim 10.
Gombert teaches wherein,
a temperature of the molten metal within the nozzle is about 1670°C or less. (Claim 12)
a temperature of the molten metal within the nozzle is about 1000°C or less. (Claim 13)
a temperature of the molten metal within the nozzle is about 400°C or less. (Claim 14)
Gombert teaches each instant claim 12, 13 and 14 previously in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, Seigmund, Ono and Gombert in the rejection of claim 14 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 14.
Gombert teaches wherein,
a viscosity of the molten metal within the nozzle is from about 0.70 mPa-s to about 0.80 mPa-s.
Gombert teaches indium molten indium at a temperature of 160°C, where indium has a melting
temperature of 156.45°C. The “Handbook of Heat Processing – Fundamentals – Calculations -Processes
(2nd Edition)” Table 3.1, provides for indium viscosity at melting temperature of 1.79 mPa-s.
Gombert discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed viscosity range of molten metal in the nozzle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the viscosity range of the molten metal in the nozzle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the viscosity range of the molten metal in the nozzle for the purpose of viscosity and temperature ( as one skilled in the would know are inversely related) process control to ensure a uniform coating of a desired thickness was achieved, where controlling fiber coating for uniform coating thickness is a standard in the art. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,837,824 (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Siegmund (herein “Siegmund”) and in further view of NPL “Significant suppression of Rayleigh scattering loss in silica glass formed by compression of its melted phase” (as submitted in the IDS dated 12/17/2024) by Ono et. al. (herein “Ono”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,853,258 by Gombert et. al. (herein “Gombert”).
Regarding Claim 18, Seigmund and Ono in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Seigmund teaches a relative size of gland aperture in relation to the fiber and the fiber directed through the gland (Col 3 lines 34-38) but fails to teach,
centering the optical fiber within the nozzle such that a first gap between an outer diameter of the optical fiber and an inner minimum diameter of the aperture at a top surface of the optical fiber is approximately equal to a second gap between the outer diameter of the optical fiber and the inner minimum diameter of the aperture at a bottom surface of the optical fiber.
The claim, in summary, is centering the fiber in the nozzle so there is equal distance around the entire outer diameter of the fiber in relation to the entire inner diameter of the nozzle. In a similar endeavor of drawing fiber through a nozzle containing a liquid, Gombert teaches
the use of a fiber guide (nozzle) for centering a fiber whether the fiber is pulled through a molten metal or a polymer . “… the method of the invention used to make a continuous and a centered metallic coating around an optic fiber. (Col 2 lines 61-63), “It is possible to show that, as a first estimate, the return force exerted on the fiber in a fiber guide (centering force) is proportionate to the viscosity of the liquid used for coating ( Col 3 lines 1-3), as well as the fiber guide calibrating the thickness of metal coating made on the fiber (Col 5 lines 1-4). Further, the metal coating is uniform (Col 3 line 59). Gombert has a method to center the fiber to produce a uniform coating, which suggests there is equal distance between the outer diameter of the fiber to the inner diameter of the nozzle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nozzle of Gombert in the process of the Siegmund, one being motivated to do so for the purpose providing a uniform coating, which is this case is a molten metal, as noted by Gombert (Col 3 lines 59).
Regarding Claim 19, Seigmund, Ono and Gombert in the rejection of claim 18 above teach all of the limitations of claim 18.
Gombert teaches wherein,
the first gap and the second gap are each about 2 microns to about 20 microns in length; Col 6 line 44-45, “Diameter of fiber guide: 0.3 mm”, “ Diameter of fiber: 110 um”. Here, the uniform gap between the fiber and the nozzle is 95um.
Gombert discloses the claimed invention except for the gap between the fiber and the nozzle of 2um to 20um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the gap between the fiber and the nozzle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, where the gap can be considered a results effective variable that effects coating thickness (as one in the art would know) involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the gap between the fiber and the nozzle for the purpose of providing a specific coating on a specific fiber at a specific draw speed in specific furnace (temperature) to provide a uniform coating thickness, which is a standard in the industry. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 (FP 7.43).
Claim 11 would be allowable for ,
wherein the molten metal is radially outward of the optical fiber preform.
Siegmund teaches an analogous liquid in a nozzle at the exit of a draw furnace, not any liquid
inside any length of the draw furnace located radially to the optical fiber preform.
Gombert teaches a reservoir of molten metal above the nozzle, but the reservoir is located after the
fiber exits the bottom of the draw furnace.
Kornmann (U.S. Patent 4,948,406) teaches a reservoir of molten metal with a nozzle at the bottom
of the reservoir but the reservoir is located below the exit of the draw furnace;
Heywood (U.S. Patent 3,486,480) teaches a reservoir of molten metal with a nozzle at the side of
the reservoir but the reservoir is located adjacent the exit of the draw furnace.
Geyling et. al (U.S. Patent 4,390, 589) teaches a reservoir of molten metal with an applicator but
the reservoir is located below the exit of the draw furnace.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741