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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 01/16/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 15-25 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claims 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 was amended by Applicant.
Status of the Rejection
Upon further consideration, the rejections of record have been withdrawn, and new rejections are established.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 11 line 30 and p. 12 line 2 of the specification recite “tetrahydrothiopene”, but should recite “tetrahydrothiophene” to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 9 and 10 and claim 7 lines 2 and 3 recite “tetrahydrothiopene”, but should recite “tetrahydrothiophene” to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It will be noted that the term “physical solvent” is a term of art referring to solvents that dissolve acidic gases e.g., carbon dioxide, without undergoing a chemical change e.g., without forming an adduct.
Similarly, the term “chemical solvent” is a term of art referring to solvents that react with acidic gases when dissolved e.g., by forming an adduct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the capture solvent comprises at least one of a physical solvent, a hybrid system, or a mixture thereof, … wherein the hybrid system is selected from the group consisting of: a mixture of diisopropylamine, water and one of tetrahydrothiopene or diethylamine; a mixture of dimethylethanolamine, water and one of tetrahydrothiopene or diethylamine, and a mixture of methanol and one of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, diisopropylamine or diethylamine” in lines 5-11.
It is not clear, in light of the specification whether “a mixture of dimethylethanolamine, water and one of tetrahydrothiopene or diethylamine, and a mixture of methanol and one of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, diisopropylamine or diethylamine” is intended to refer to:
A) one composition of the hybrid system i.e.,
a mixture of dimethylethanolamine, water and one of:
i) tetrahydrothiophene,
ii) diethylamine,
iii) a mixture of methanol and
iv) one of
1) monoethanolamine,
2) diethanolamine,
3) diisopropylamine,
4) diethylamine; or
B) two distinct compositions of the hybrid system i.e.,
i) a mixture of dimethylethanolamine, water and one of tetrahydrothiopene or diethylamine, or
ii) a mixture of methanol and one of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, diisopropylamine or diethylamine.
In other words, it is not clear if one of the compositions of the hybrid system requires each of dimethylethanolamine, water, methanol, and one of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, diisopropylamine or diethylamine, or if a hybrid solvent system comprising “a mixture of methanol and one of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, diisopropylamine or diethylamine” is a distinct option recited in the Markush claim.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 line 10 to recite “diethylamine; [[,]] and” if “a mixture of methanol and one of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, diisopropylamine or diethylamine” is intended to be a discrete option, or amending claim 1 line 10 to recite “one of: tetrahydrothiophene, diethylamine, or [[and]]” if the mixture of methanol and another solvent was intended to be a subcomponent of the mixture of dimethylethanolamine and water.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-20, these claims depend from claim 1, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claim 1. These claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 further limits the capture solvent such that the indefinite language of claim 1 is corrected.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation “at least one salt in the non-aqueous solution” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 16, from which claim 17 depends, recites “at least one salt in a non-aqueous solution”.
It is therefore unclear whether: a claim 17 is intended to refer to:
a) “the at least one salt in the non-aqueous solution” i.e., claim 17 is intended to require the same at least one salt from claim 16, or
b) “at least one salt in a non-aqueous solution” i.e., claim 17 is intended to require at least one salt, but said at least one salt need not be the same at least one salt recited in claim 16.
Furthermore, claim 17 depends from claim 1, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 17 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkaraju (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0008800) in view of De Kler (WO 2017/014635 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lakkaraju teaches a method for electrochemically reducing carbon dioxide (abstract) comprising:
a) contacting a carbon dioxide-containing gas stream (“gas source 108” para. 27 and Fig. 1b) with a capture solvent (“carbon capture agent 124” Id.), thereby absorbing carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide-containing gas stream to form a carbon dioxide-rich capture solvent (“The gas source 108 preferably includes a carbon dioxide source. … mixing chamber 132 generally facilitates the interaction between the carbon dioxide and the carbon capture agent 124 to permit the capture of carbon dioxide within the mixing chamber 132” Id.), wherein the capture solvent comprises a physical solvent, wherein the physical solvent is methanol (“the carbon dioxide capture agent 124 includes a non-aqueous, organic solvent. The organic solvent preferably includes one or more of methanol, …” para. 23);
b) introducing at least part of the carbon dioxide-rich capture solvent into a cathode compartment of an electrochemical cell (“The captured carbon dioxide may be introduced to the cathode compartment 114b for reduction of the captured carbon dioxide at the cathode 120” para. 27 and Fig. 1b);
c) applying an electrical potential between an anode and a cathode in the electrochemical cell sufficient for the cathode to reduce carbon dioxide into a reduced carbon dioxide product or product mixture in the carbon dioxide-rich capture solvent, thereby providing a carbon dioxide-poor capture solvent (“In the step 206, an electrical potential may be applied between the anode and the cathode sufficient for the cathode to reduce the carbamic zwitterion to a product mixture.” para. 33 and Fig. 2, see also para. 19 and Fig. 1b); and
d) collecting the reduced carbon dioxide product or product mixture (“The product extractor 110 generally facilitates extraction of one or more products from the electrolyte 122 and/or the carbon dioxide capture agent 124. …” para. 29 and Fig. 1b), wherein
the anode is separated from the cathode by a semi-permeable separator, thereby forming a cathodic compartment and an anodic compartment (“a separator (or membrane) 116” para. 20 and Fig. 1b and “The compartments may be separated by a … ion exchange membrane” para. 17).
Lakkaraju does not teach the absolute pressure in the electrochemical cell is 20 bar or more and 138 bar or less, or the absolute pressure of the carbon dioxide-containing gas stream is 20-200 bar.
However, De Kler teaches a method for electrochemically reducing carbon dioxide (title), wherein the electrochemical cell is operated at an absolute pressure between 20 and 200 bar (“The pressure in the electrochemical reactor is 20 bara or more, … Usually, the pressure in the electrochemical reactor will not exceed 200 bara” p. 13 line 28 – p. 14 line), a range encompassing the claimed range, and the absolute pressure of the carbon dioxide-containing gas stream is 20-200 bar (“The pressure of the carbon dioxide feed is preferably 20 bara or more, … Usually, the pressure of the carbon dioxide feed will not exceed 200 bara.” p. 11 lines 15-20), a range identical to the claimed range, which provides the predictable benefit of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide at the cathode, thereby increasing the conversion efficiency of carbon dioxide to product (p. 6 line 27 – p. 7 line 2 and p. 21 lines 9-15).
As Lakkaraju and De Kler each teach methods for the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide, Lakkaraju and De Kler are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lakkaraju, such that the absolute pressure in the electrochemical cell is 20 bar or more and 200 bar or less, a range encompassing the claimed range, and the absolute pressure of the carbon dioxide-containing gas stream is 20-200 bar, a range identical to the claimed range, as taught by De Kler. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide at the cathode, and thereby increasing the efficiency of carbon dioxide reduction to product, as taught by De Kler. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Lakkaraju further teaches e) recirculating at least part of the carbon dioxide-poor capture solvent to an absorber unit (“The carbon dioxide capture agent 124 may be recycled back into the compartment 114b for capture of additional carbon dioxide” para. 29 and Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju is silent as to the temperature in the electrochemical cell, which implies room temperature i.e., approximately 20 °C, a value within the claimed range.
Alternatively, De Kler further teaches the temperature of the cell is preferably between 0 and 20 °C (“The temperature in the electrochemical reactor during the method of the invention is preferably 20 °C or less … The temperature will normally not be below 0 °C” p. 15 lines 6-12), a range overlapping the claimed range.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lakkaraju, such that the temperature of the cell is between 0 and 20 °C, as taught by De Kler. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because De Kler teaches this temperature is suitable for the electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to products. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using the temperature range taught by De Kler in place of the unspecified temperature of Lakkaraju) to achieve predictable results (i.e., electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches the carbon dioxide-containing gas stream of a) is contacted with the capture solvent in an absorber unit (“mixing chamber 132” para. 20 and Fig. 1b).
Lakkaraju does not explicitly teach the carbon dioxide is selectively absorbed by the capture solvent.
However, in an alternative embodiment Lakkaraju teaches the use of a capture solvent selective for carbon dioxide (“The carbon dioxide capture agent 124 may facilitate capture of carbon dioxide in the compartment 114b (or in the mixing chamber 132) by forming a carbamic zwitterion with the carbon dioxide.” para. 21).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lakkaraju, by using a capture solvent selective for carbon dioxide in addition to the physical solvent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lakkaraju teaches solvents selective for carbon dioxide absorption are suitable for carbon dioxide reduction. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose i.e., solvents having selectivity for carbon dioxide absorption, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches the physical solvent is methanol (“the carbon dioxide capture agent 124 includes a non-aqueous, organic solvent. The organic solvent preferably includes one or more of methanol, …” para. 23).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju does not teach the capture solvent comprises at least one chemical solvent.
However, in an alternative embodiment Lakkaraju teaches the use of a chemical solvent (“The carbon dioxide capture agent 124 may facilitate capture of carbon dioxide in the compartment 114b (or in the mixing chamber 132) by forming a carbamic zwitterion with the carbon dioxide.” para. 21).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lakkaraju, by using a chemical solvent in addition to the physical solvent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lakkaraju teaches chemical solvents are suitable for carbon dioxide reduction. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose i.e., chemical solvents, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lakkaraju further teaches the chemical solvent is a tertiary amine (“Preferred guanidine and pyrimidine derivatives include 1,1,3,3-tetramethylguanidine, 1,5,7-triazabicyclo[4.4.0]dec-5-ene, 7-methyl-1,5, 7-triazabicyclo[4.4.0]dec-5-ene, 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene, 1,5-diazabicyclo[4.3.0]non-5-ene, …” para. 21, note each of the listed preferred compounds, with the exception of 1,4,5,6-tetrahydropyrimidine, is a tertiary amine).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju is silent as to the temperature of the contacting of carbon dioxide-containing gas stream with capture solvent, which implies room temperature i.e., approximately 20 °C, a value within the claimed range.
Alternatively, De Kler further teaches 20 °C, a value within the claimed range, is suitable as the temperature of the contacting of carbon dioxide-containing gas stream with capture solvent (p. 21 lines 16-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lakkaraju, such that the temperature of the contacting of carbon dioxide-containing gas stream with capture solvent is 20 °C, as taught by De Kler. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because De Kler teaches this temperature is suitable for contacting the carbon dioxide-containing gas stream with the capture solvent. Simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using the temperature taught by De Kler in place of the unspecified temperature of Lakkaraju) to achieve predictable results (i.e., mixing carbon dioxide with a capture solvent) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches the reduced carbon dioxide product or product mixture comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, and carboxylic acids and salts thereof (“The organic product may include one or more of carbon monoxide, carbonate, and oxalate.” para. 23).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches at least one salt in a non-aqueous solution is added to the cathodic compartment to improve electrical conductivity (“the cell 102 may include an electrolyte suitable for a non-aqueous solvent, preferably with a quarternary [sic] ammonium cation.” para. 23 and “An electrolyte solution 122 (e.g., anolyte or catholyte 122) may fill both compartments 114a-114b.” para. 20, see also Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has been interpreted as “at least one salt in a non-aqueous solution”.
Lakkaraju further teaches at least one salt in a non-aqueous solution is added to the anodic compartment to improve electrical conductivity (“the cell 102 may include an electrolyte suitable for a non-aqueous solvent, preferably with a quarternary [sic] ammonium cation.” para. 23 and “An electrolyte solution 122 (e.g., anolyte or catholyte 122) may fill both compartments 114a-114b.” para. 20, see also Fig. 1b. I.e., Lakkaraju teaches the electrolyte is added to both compartments).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches at least one salt in an aqueous solution is added to the cathodic compartment to improve electrical conductivity (“An electrolyte solution 122 (e.g., anolyte or catholyte 122) may fill both compartments 114a-114b. The electrolyte solution 122 may include water as a solvent with water soluble salts for providing various cations and anions in solution,” para. 20 and Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches at least one salt in an aqueous solution is added to the anodic compartment to improve electrical conductivity (“An electrolyte solution 122 (e.g., anolyte or catholyte 122) may fill both compartments 114a-114b. The electrolyte solution 122 may include water as a solvent with water soluble salts for providing various cations and anions in solution,” para. 20 and Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Lakkaraju further teaches the cathode comprises an electrically conducting metal electrocatalyst (“the cathode 120 includes materials suitable for the reduction of carbon dioxide including cadmium, a cadmium alloy, cobalt, a cobalt alloy, nickel, a nickel alloy, chromium, a chromium alloy, indium, an indium alloy, iron, an iron alloy, copper, a copper alloy, lead, a lead alloy, palladium, a palladium alloy, platinum, a platinum alloy, molybdenum, a molybdenum alloy, tungsten, a tungsten alloy, niobium, a niobium alloy, silver, a silver alloy, tin, a tin alloy, rhodium, a rhodium alloy, ruthenium, a ruthenium alloy, carbon, and mixtures thereof.” para. 20).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkaraju in view of De Kler, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yoon (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0072361 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lakkaraju renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Modified Lakkaraju does not teach the capture solvent is a mixture of diisopropylamine, water and one of tetrahydrothiophene or diethylamine; or dimethylethanolamine, water and one of tetrahydrothiophene or diethylamine.
However, Yoon teaches a carbon dioxide capture solvent composition suitable for use in an electrochemical cell (abstract), wherein the capture solvent comprises a mixture of water and amines (“an aqueous electrolyte solution group consisting of amines” para. 34), wherein the amines may comprise diethylamine and/or diisopropylamine (The secondary amines may include saturated aliphatic secondary amines such as dimethylamine, diethylamine, diisopropylamine, etc.,” para. 35).
As Yoon teaches a carbon dioxide capture solvent suitable for use in an electrochemical cell, Yoon is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lakkaraju, such that the capture solvent comprises a mixture of water, diisopropylamine, and diethylamine. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yoon teaches a mixture of water and secondary amines is suitable for the absorption of carbon dioxide and its subsequent reaction in an electrochemical cell. Use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9-13, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly identified prior art.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 10-11 that Tamura does not teach the use of an increased pressure for the carbon dioxide stream or for the electrolytic cell in the paragraph cited.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner agrees. The rejection has therefore been withdrawn. Examiner apologizes for the incorrect citation.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 11 that modifying the method of Lakkaraju to use greater pressure would require modifying the electrolytic cell to tolerate such pressures, and that the modification would therefore be non-obvious.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that modifying the method of Lakkaraju to use higher pressures would also require modifying the apparatus of Lakkaraju, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, while modifying the apparatus used in the of Lakkaraju to use higher pressures would indeed be necessary, such modifications are considered well within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention as evidenced by e.g., De Kler’s use of such pressures.
As a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the apparatus used in the system of Lakkaraju to use components tolerant to the higher pressures suggested by De Kler, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 12-13 that the higher pressure used in the instant invention leads to unexpectedly higher current densities, and is therefore not rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for unexpected results to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must provide evidence that has a nexus to the claimed invention (MPEP § 716.01(b)), such evidence must be commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP § 716.02(d)), the evidence must demonstrate a benefit over the closest prior art (MPEP § 716.02(e)), and Applicant must demonstrate that any such benefit demonstrated is, in fact, unexpected (MPEP § 716.02(b)(I) and 716.02(c)).
In the instant case, Applicant has asserted the benefit of higher current densities is the result of the claimed pressures, but Applicant’s evidence in support of this benefit is a statement in the specification indicating that elevated pressure increases the current efficiency in general. Applicant’s evidence therefore does not have a nexus to the invention as claimed, which requires pressures between 20 and 138 bara in the electrochemical cell and between 20 and 200 bara for the carbon dioxide feed.
Furthermore, it is well understood in the art that higher pressures of carbon dioxide result in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide species at the cathode, and thus higher current efficiencies according to Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis, as evidenced by e.g., De Kler (see rejection of claim 1, above) and Hara et al. (“Electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide under high pressure on various electrodes in an aqueous electrolyte” Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 391 (1995) 141-147, see e.g., abstract). Thus, even if evidence in support of this asserted benefit is provided, it is unclear how it could reasonably be considered an “unexpected benefit” (see MPEP § 716.02(b)(I) and 716.02(c)).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Braun (US 2014/0272734 A1) teaches an integrated process for the extraction of carbon dioxide into an absorbent and its subsequent electrochemical reduction (see abstract). Lail (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0164200 A1) teaches that use of a mixed solvent system comprising water, diisopropylamine or diethylamine, and an immiscible organic solvent for carbon dioxide absorption provides the predictable benefit of improving the efficiency of the regeneration of the absorbent relative to a fully aqueous absorption medium (see paras. 9-11 and 52-53).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795