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 .
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to DE10 2023 136 320.4 with a filing date of 12/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 12 drawn to process of making in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claim 11(drawn to a product) is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a product (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 08/10/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 7 – the claimed ranges for respective attributes are inclusive. Example: Claim 3 – temperature of the melt or solution is 200°C to 400°C, includes is 200°C and 400°C values.
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”. . Below is/are a list of claims/limitations that are structural limitations or mere outcomes of the method, (not a method):
Regarding an aspect of Claim 12 – “has an O-ring for sealing” is a mere claiming of a use of a particular structure (O-ring) and would not be entitled to weight in the method.
Regarding an aspect of Claim 12 – “ a recess in the inner shaft tube “ is a mere claiming of a use of a particular structure (recess) and would not be entitled to weight in the method.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show,
a cylindrical diaphragm into a recess in the inner shaft tube.
the O-ring of the diaphragm on the outer surface.
a measuring half-cell containing a shaft tube.
a pH sensitive glass membrane.
a pH sensitive glass membrane connected to the shaft tube in a material locking manner;
as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 – an analyte-sensitive sensor / an
Regarding Claim 3 – a portion of the glass component in the melt or solution / a portion of the glass component in the melt or solution containing potassium-nitrate.
Regarding Claim 4 – immersed in the glass melt / immersed in the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 3 (and dependent 4) , 5 and 12 is/are 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.
Claims 3 and 5 recite “the temperature of the melt”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “a temperature of the melt”.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the diaphragm”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “wherein the cylindrical diaphragm”. Interview Summary dated 09/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
3,399,667 by Nishimoto et. al. (herein “Nishimoto”) in further view of U.S. Patent 8,075,999 by Barefoot
et. al. (herein “Barefoot”) and in further view of Evidentiary USPGPUB 20030178305A1 by Catalano et.
al. (herein “Catalano”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Nishimoto teaches a method for producing a break-resistant glass component of an See Interview Summary) comprising:
providing at least one glass component of a sensor, which includes a sodium containing and/or lithium-containing glass; Col 1 lines 11-13, Col 4 lines 43-44 “…A pH sensor comprising a glass container having a bulb of a pH sensitive glass composition and neck on said bulb…”, …A per se known pH sensitive glass composition consisting of silica, lithium oxide…and other metal oxide…”
wherein,
the glass component comprises an inner shaft tube and an outer shaft tube surrounding the inner shaft tube and connected in a material-locking manner to the inner shaft tube; Col 3 lines 8-10, 18-19, 26-28, 35-37, Fig. 2, Fig. 3. Fig. 4 “…a pH sensitive glass bulb 31…is made from a glass tube…the glass tube which forms a neck 2 (outer shaft tube)”, “…a spacer 30 comprising disk 3 and a stem 4 ( stem 4= inner shaft)…”, “…the disc 3 and stem 4 can be combined in the form shown in Fig. 4 by fusing…”, “…The disc 3 is tightly inserted in the neck 2 and is secured in position by fusing…”. Here, disk 3 is fused to stem 4 and neck 2, reading on the inner/outer shaft tubes connected in a material locking manner.
Nishimoto does not disclose,
and bringing the glass component into contact with a melt or solution containing potassium nitrate;
In an analogous endeavor of bringing glass sheets that contain lithium oxide and silica (Col 8 lines 33-34, 50-51, Claims 8, 9), Barefoot discloses the glass articles are chemically strengthened by ion exchange (Col 9 lines 23-25) carried out by immersing the glass article in a molten salt bath (Col 9 lines 35-36), where the molten salt bath contains salts (nitrates) (Col 9 lines 46-49) of the larger metal ion, where the larger metal ion may be K+ (Col 9 lines 31-34) – potassium nitrate for glass thicknesses between 0.2mm 2.0mm (Col 10 lines 19-22). Barefoot discloses the claimed invention except for the glass component of a sensor. 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 deploy and ion exchange process, where the glass comes into contact with the glass, of Barefoot for the glass sensor of Nishimoto, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of creating compressive stress in the glass article to strengthen the glass article, as noted by Barefoot (Col 10 lines 43-45) and further supported by Evidentiary Catalano, where it is noted that there are many industrial pH applications that have solids present which may travel through the process pipeline and cause a pH glass membrane to crack or break [0078] (notes glass thicknesses between 0.1in-0.3in = 254-760um;[0012]) . While Catalano addresses cracking/breakage in a different manner, the motivation to obtain high strength for glass pH electrodes is cited ([0078]).
Regarding Claims 3, 4 (in the rejection of Claim 3 teaches all the limitations of Claim 3) 5, 6 -
Nishimoto, Barefoot, and Catalano in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
wherein, the step of bringing the glass component into contact with the melt or
solution containing potassium-nitrate includes,
immersing at least a portion of the glass component in the melt or
solution, wherein the temperature of the melt or solution is 200°C-400 °C; Claim 3.
the glass component is completely immersed in the glass melt; Claim 4.
temperature of the melt or solution containing potassium-nitrate is 250-350°C; Claim 5.
the glass component is immersed in the melt or solution containing potassium-nitrate for a
period of 2 minutes to 3 hours; Claim 6.
Barefoot discloses the glass articles are chemically strengthened by ion exchange (Col 9 lines 23-25)
carried out by immersing the glass article in a molten salt bath (Col 9 lines 35-36), where the molten salt
bath contains salts (nitrates) (Col 9 lines 46-49) of the larger metal ion, where the larger metal ion may
be K+ (Col 9 lines 31-34) (i.e. potassium nitrate) where the molten salt bath is in the range of 380°C to
450°C for a time of 15 minutes to 16 hrs. (Col 9 lines 50-52). Overlapping ranges are prima facie
evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Barefoot’s temperature
range (200°C-400 °C) and time range that corresponds to the claimed range temperature range and
time range . MPEP 2144.05. Further, Barefoot discloses the invention except for the temperature range
of 250°C-350°C. 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 temperature, since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or
workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the
temperature for the purpose of obtaining the desired depth of layer and compressive stress, as noted by
Barefoot (Col 9 lines 38-45).
Regarding Claims 8, 9 (in the rejection of Claim 8 teaches all the limitations of Claim 8), 10 (in the
rejection of Claim 9 teaches all the limitations of Claim 9) - Nishimoto, Barefoot, and Catalano in the
rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Nishimoto teaches wherein,
the ion-sensitive sensor is an analyte-sensitive sensor; Claim 8.
a cation-sensitive sensor is a Na+, K+- sensor or a pH-sensitive or hydronium-ion-sensitive
sensor. Claim 9.
the cation-sensitive sensor is a pH-sensitive or hydronium-ion-sensitive sensor. Claim 10.
Nishimoto discloses a pH sensor comprising a glass container ( Col 1 line 11), where a pH sensor
reads on Claim 8 (analyte-sensitive sensor, sensitive to the analyte H+), Claim 9 (a pH-sensitive
sensor) and Claim 10 ( a pH sensitive sensor).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et. al. in further view
of Barefoot et. al. in further view of Catalano et. al. and in further view of U.S. Patent 2,462,843 by Cary
et. al. (herein “Cary”).
Regarding Claim 2 - Nishimoto, Barefoot, and Catalano in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 1.
Nishimoto teaches wherein,
While Nishimoto discloses a lithium oxide/silica containing glass, Nishimoto does not disclose,
the glass component additionally contains at least one of the compounds selected from alumina, boron oxide, barium oxide, strontium oxide and iron oxide;
In similar endeavor of a glass that contains lithium oxide and silica for a glass electrode for the purpose of pH measurement (Co 1 lines 1-2, Col 2 lines 35-36), Cary discloses that alumina (Al2O3) may be added to the glass. 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 a glass electrode for pH measurement made from a glass that contains alumina, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of retard the aging that takes place when glass electrodes are exposed to acid solutions for long periods of time, as noted by Cary (Col 9 lines 26-28).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et. al. in further view
of Barefoot et. al. in further view of Catalano et. al. and in further view of USPGPUB 20220289623A1 by
Guilfoyle et. al. ( herein “Guilfoyle”).
Regarding Claim 7 - Nishimoto, Barefoot, and Catalano in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination discloses an ion exchange process for glass electrode/glass electrodes that are
thin (Barefoot, glass thicknesses between 0.2mm 2.0mm(200um-2000um) (Col 10 lines 19-22),
(Catalano glass thicknesses between 0.1in-0.3in = 254-760um;[0012])combination does not disclose
wherein the step of bringing the glass component into contact with the melt or solution containing
potassium-nitrate includes,
immersing the glass component in a potassium-nitrate-containing solution or sprinkling or
spraying the glass component with the potassium-nitrate-containing solution, wherein the
bringing step is followed by a drying step at 200-400 °C;
In an analogous endeavor of ion exchange thin glass articles to improve glass article strength using alkali
aluminosilicate glasses where embodiments contain lithium oxide ([0005], [0026], [0027] [0059 lines 8-
9], Guilfoyle discloses an aqueous precursor solution applied to the surface of a glass based article less
than 300um thick [0080] by spraying, dipping, or casting (sprinkling) the aqueous precursor solution
[0029] to create a film forming coating [0068 lines 12] where the parts are transported mechanically
during the process. The precursor aqueous solution contains nitrates of K (i.e. KNO3) [0069 lines 9-11,
17-18]. The film forming coating is dried to remove water from the coating by heating from 100°C to
140°C and then removing the binder by heating the film forming layer to a temperature range of 300°C
to 500°C. Example 1 captures the use of KNO3 in the aqueous precursor, spraying the aqueous precursor
on the glass articles of ultra-thin glass, removing the water at 100°C and removing the binder at 300°C to
500°C [0096].
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 spraying or casting technique to apply the KNO3
containing liquid as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of minimizing breakage of ultra-
thin glass articles by reducing handling and reducing cost of the ion exchange process, as noted by
Guilfoyle [0079]. Further, the binders noted by Guilfoyle ( cellulose, ethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose =
burnout range from 259°C to 300°C (Evidentiary Reference Janigova, Table II , DTG values at heating
rates of 2.5°C/min and 5.0°C/min)), (Aquazol 5/50 = burnout temperature of 380°C ( Evidentiary
Wayback Machine Talas Aquazol)) where a claimed drying temperature range of 200°C- 400°C
would burnout all binders, and as a PHOSITA would know, drive off all water (drying), in one step vs. the
two-step process of drying/binder burnout of Guilfoyle. Generally, no invention is involved in the broad
concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In
re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125. 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 use perform one process step vs. two
the as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of efficiency. "Indeed, we have repeatedly held
that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior
art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger,
cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-
sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references
even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves." In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95,
217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H.
Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As well,
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20190137439A1 by
Wilhelm (herein “Wilhelm”) in further view of Cary, Nishimoto et. al., Barefoot et. al., and Catalano et.
al.
Regarding Claim 12 - Nishimoto teaches a method for producing the break-resistant glass assembly of
an ion-sensitive glass sensor, comprising:
the glass component comprises an inner shaft tube and an outer shaft tube surrounding the
inner shaft tube and connected in a material-locking manner to the inner shaft tube; [0021],
[0023], “..the inner shaft tube 4 extends coaxially with outer shaft tube 2”, “…the outer shaft
tube 2 and the inner shaft tube are sealed in a liquid-tight manner…”.
inserting a cylindrical diaphragm into a recess in the inner shaft tube wherein the (cylindrical)
diaphragm on the outer surface, has an O-ring for sealing with the inner shaft tube; use of a
particular structure, See Claim Interpretation; [0019], Fig. 1 element 12, “…The sensor 1
includes an outer shaft tube 2, which is connected in a front end section 13 to an inner tube 4
via an annular (cylindrical) diaphragm 12…The diaphragm 12… may be connected in a form-fit
manner”.
and on the inside has a cylindrical cavity; Fig. 1 illustrates diaphragm 12 with a cavity where
inner tube 4 (tube = cylindrical shape = cavity has cylindrical shape) resides.
and inserting a measuring half-cell, containing a shaft tube and a pH-sensitive glass membrane
connected in a material-locking manner to the shaft tube, into the cylindrical cavity; Fig. 1,
Claim 18, Claim 17, “…a half-cell including: a tube-shaped carrier element having an end
section; and a pH-sensitive glass membrane connected to the end section of the carrier
element…”fusing…a pH sensitive glass membrane onto the end section…”, “…a method for
manufacturing a half-cell for measuring a pH value of a measuring medium, the method
comprising: providing an inner tube having an end section…and assembling the inner tube with
the membrane within a shaft tube”. In Fig. 1, as the diaphragm was previously attached to the
inner/outer tubes 4/2 (respectively), assembling the inner tube with the membrane within a
shaft tube includes inserting through the cavity of the diaphragm 12.
While Wilhem cites the use of a pH sensitive glass for glass membrane 3 that contains lithium oxide
[0035], prior art teaching a glass inner tube and a glass outer tube [0004], that the tube shaped carrier
of the pH sensitive glass membrane being able to be fused to glass, Wilhelm does not disclose,
the glass component comprises an inner shaft tube and an outer shaft tube surrounding the
inner shaft tube and connected in a material-locking manner to the inner shaft tube;
providing at least one glass component of a sensor, which includes a sodium containing and/or
lithium-containing glass;
In a similar endeavor to making pH sensitive electrodes, in similar endeavor of a glass electrodes
for the purpose of pH measurement (Co 1 lines 1-2, Col 2 lines 35-36), Cary discloses the use of a lithium
oxide and silica for a glass (Col 2 lines 35-36). 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 glass for the inner shaft
and outer shaft as proposed by Cary for the inner shaft and outer shaft of Wilhelm, as one would be
motivated to do so for the purpose of pH measurements in highly alkaline solutions, as noted by Cary
(Col 2 lines 13-15, 30-34). Further, using Nishimoto as Evidentiary (Col 4 lines 43-44 “……A per se known
pH sensitive glass composition consisting of silica, lithium oxide…), 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).
Wilhelm does not disclose,
bringing the glass component into contact with a melt or solution containing potassium nitrate;
In an analogous endeavor of bringing glass sheets that contain lithium oxide and silica (Col 8 lines 33-34, 50-51, Claims 8, 9), Barefoot discloses the glass articles are chemically strengthened by ion exchange (Col 9 lines 23-25) carried out by immersing the glass article in a molten salt bath (Col 9 lines 35-36), where the molten salt bath contains salts (nitrates) (Col 9 lines 46-49) of the larger metal ion, where the larger metal ion may be K+ (Col 9 lines 31-34) – potassium nitrate for glass thicknesses between 0.2mm 2.0mm (Col 10 lines 19-22). Barefoot discloses the claimed invention except for the glass component of a sensor. 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 deploy and ion exchange process, where the glass comes into contact with the glass, of Barefoot for the glass sensor of Nishimoto, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of creating compressive stress in the glass article to strengthen the glass article, as noted by Barefoot (Col 10 lines 43-45) and further supported by Evidentiary Catalano, where it is noted that there are many industrial pH applications that have solids present which may travel through the process pipeline and cause a pH glass membrane to crack or break [0078] (notes glass thicknesses between 0.1in-0.3in = 254-760um;[0012]) . While Catalano addresses cracking/breakage in a different manner, the motivation to obtain high strength for glass pH electrodes is cited ([0078]).
cooling of the glass component to room temperature;
Barefoot further cites “…from experimental measurements of compressive stresses CS and depths of
layer of ion exchanged glass samples…”, where measurements are performed at room temperature
typically. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at some point the glass article is cooled
to room temperature as motivated to transport said article or handle and use the article.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Kashima et. al.( JP2019182686A) discloses ion exchange processes for lithium containing glass, which includes immersion and spraying techniques.
Hanko et. al. (U.S. Patent 11,002,703) discloses an electrochemical half-cell with an ion selective electrode known as a pH glass electrode, and its structure.
Thrier (USPGPUB 20140034515A1) discloses a glass electrode with a pH sensitive glass.
Lobbert et. al. (USPGPUB20130270125A1) discloses a glass electrode with a pH sensitive glass.
Sovrano et. al. ((USPGPUB 20050233369A1) discloses a glass electrode with a pH sensitive glass where outer and inner glass tubes are fused together.
Lobbert et. al. (USPGPUB 20200166477A1) discloses a glass electrode with a pH sensitive glass.
Melzer (U.S. Patent 5,567,291) discloses a pH glass electrode with a pH sensitive membrane where inner and outer tubes are glass and sealed together, and its structure.
Neukem (U.S. Patent 5,139,641) discloses a pH glass electrode with a pH sensitive membrane where inner and outer tubes are glass and sealed together, and its structure.
Brezinski et. al (U.S. Patent 4,297,193) discloses glass compositions for pH sensitive glass electrodes.
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
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
