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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10th, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the reply of November 10th, 2025, the following has occurred:
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 13 is/are amended
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-18 is/are pending
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejection of the claims is being respectfully maintained, as further detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed November 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues on pp. 9-10 that Friend teaches implementing a tuned purge flow by controlling purge flow to a calculated setpoint, not upon expiration of a predetermined sequence duration, effecting a transition to a next sequence. Friend treats purge time as a parameter in its flow computations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, it is the Examiner’s position that the device of Friend operates the towers on a timed interval. For example, Friend col. 2 ll. 40-44, “As previously discussed, the RTO 10 is configured so each of the towers 20A-C operates primarily in either of an inlet, exhaust, or purge mode during various operating cycles. Therefore, when the operating cycle of the RTO 10 changes at timed intervals …” Further, the intent of Friend, shown by fig. 3, is to calculate the total volume of air required to be purged, steps before and including 440, determine how long the purge time is based on the timed interval of the valves, step 450, and then calculate at what rate the purge needs to occur to be satisfactory, steps after and including 460.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues on p. 10 that the combination of Friend and DeClerc only suggests using poppet valves with an RTO, and does not teach the limitations of claims without hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on p. 10 that there is no reason to combine Friend with DeClerc since Friend relates to energy efficiency and DeClerc relates to poppet hardware.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as noted in the rejection below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Friend to use the poppet structure of DeClerc to achieve the predictable result of alternating heat transfer zones in a predictable way, see MPEP 2143 I.
For these reasons, the rejection to the claims is being respectfully maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 13-18 of copending Application No. 17/334,791 in view of CA 2333870 C to De Clerc and US 8740613 B1 to Friend.
The copending application fails to claim each of the poppet valves comprising a blade which is movable between a respective first position and a respective second position, wherein positions of the first chamber first valve and the first chamber second valve determine which mode the first chamber is in, wherein positions of the second chamber first valve and the second chamber second valve determine which mode the second chamber is in, wherein positions of the third chamber first valve and the third chamber second valve determine which mode the third chamber is in.
De Clerc teaches a blade (De Clerc fig. 1, disk 18) which is movable between a respective first position and a respective second position (De Clerc pp. 6-7, “At the distal end of the actuating shaft 16 relative to the cylinder 12 is a disk 18 which seals against either of rolled angle flange damper seats 19, 19’, depending on the valve open or closed position.” Thus, disk 18 has an open and closed position), wherein positions of the first chamber first valve and the first chamber second valve determine which mode the first chamber is in (whether the first chamber first and second valves are opened or closed determine which mode the chamber is in), wherein positions of the second chamber first valve and the second chamber second valve determine which mode the second chamber is in (whether the second chamber first and second valves are opened or closed determine which mode the chamber is in), wherein positions of the third chamber first valve and the third chamber second valve determine which mode the third chamber is in (whether the third chamber first and second valves are opened or closed determine which mode the chamber is in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a suitable valve arrangements, as taught by De Clerc, as the valve arrangement of the copending application. Thus, the modified copending application would teach the first, second, and third chamber first and second valves being poppet valves having a respective first and second position for a movable blade. Using the suitable valve arrangement of De Clerc would provide suitable structure to achieve the predictable result of alternating the heat transfer zones to provide matrix regeneration, as suggested by De Clerc in the abstract, “The alternating of the heat transfer zones to provide matrix regeneration is accomplished via regenerative thermal oxidizer switching valves.”
The copending application additionally fails to explicitly claim that the respective chamber’s valves are automatically positioned based on a plurality of sequences upon expiration of a predetermined sequence duration.
Friend teaches sequencing of chamber valves based on a sequence duration (Friend col. 6 starting in l. 24, “Next, at step 450 the controller 250 carrying out the process 400 determines or otherwise estimates that the sequencing of valves 90A-C, 92A-C, 94A-C to identify the elapsed time of each purge, which is referred to herein as the purge time.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the claimed device of the copending application at least partially based on the purge time. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing the chambers to be purged with little to no excess air, as suggested by Friend in col. 6 ll. 45-52, “After the valve sequencing is examined, the process continues to step 460, the total tuned purge air volume is divided by the purge time as determined at step 450 to obtain the tuned purge volumetric flow rate, which identifies the precise volumetric flow rate within the purge duct or manifold 110 to provide the correct air volume needed to pass into the RTO tower 20 to complete the purge cycle with minimal or no excess air.”
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8740613 B1 to Friend in view of CA 2333870 C to De Clerc.
Regarding claim 1. Friend teaches a regenerative thermal oxidizer apparatus, comprising:
a first chamber opening into an inlet manifold, an outlet manifold, and a purge manifold (fig. 2, tower 20A opening to inlet manifold 100, exhaust manifold 130, and purge manifold 110),
a first chamber first valve controlling access from the first chamber to the outlet manifold (col. 1 l. 67 – col. 2 l. 2, “the exhaust valves 94A-C are operatively coupled to an exhaust manifold or duct 130”),
a first chamber second valve controlling access from the first chamber to the inlet manifold (col. 1 ll. 63-65, “the inlet valves 90A-C are operatively coupled to an inlet manifold or duct 100, which receives solvent-laden air from a pollution source 102.”), and
a first chamber purge valve controlling access from the first chamber to the purge manifold (col. 1 ll. 65-67, “The purge valves 92A-C are operatively coupled to a purge manifold or duct 110”);
a second chamber opening into the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold, and the purge manifold (fig. 2, tower 20C opening to inlet manifold 100, exhaust manifold 130, and purge manifold 110),
a second chamber first valve controlling access from the second chamber to the outlet manifold (col. 1 l. 67 – col. 2 l. 2, “the exhaust valves 94A-C are operatively coupled to an exhaust manifold or duct 130”),
a second chamber second valve controlling access from the first chamber to the inlet manifold (col. 1 ll. 63-65, “the inlet valves 90A-C are operatively coupled to an inlet manifold or duct 100, which receives solvent-laden air from a pollution source 102.”), and
a second chamber purge valve controlling access from the second chamber to the purge manifold (col. 1 ll. 65-67, “The purge valves 92A-C are operatively coupled to a purge manifold or duct 110”);
a third chamber opening into the inlet manifold, the outlet manifold, and the purge manifold (fig. 2, tower 20B opening to inlet manifold 100, exhaust manifold 130, and purge manifold 110),
a third chamber first valve controlling access from the third chamber to the outlet manifold (col. 1 l. 67 – col. 2 l. 2, “the exhaust valves 94A-C are operatively coupled to an exhaust manifold or duct 130”),
a third chamber second valve controlling access from the third chamber to the inlet manifold (col. 1 ll. 63-65, “the inlet valves 90A-C are operatively coupled to an inlet manifold or duct 100, which receives solvent-laden air from a pollution source 102.”), and
a third chamber purge valve controlling access from the third chamber to the purge manifold (col. 1 ll. 65-67, “The purge valves 92A-C are operatively coupled to a purge manifold or duct 110”);
a processing unit configured to selectively control the first chamber first valve, the first chamber second valve, the second chamber first valve, the second chamber second valve, the third chamber first valve, the third chamber second valve, (col. 4 ll. 40-43, “The purge air control system 200 provides a controller 250 that is electrically (and/or through programming) coupled to the inlet, purge, and outlet valves 90-94A-C”) such that the processing unit is configured to put the regenerative thermal oxidizer into a first sequence (as seen in fig. 2, but described with respect to fig. 1 in col. 2 ll. 1-14, “For example, as shown in FIG. 1, during one operating cycle of the RTO 10, the inlet valve 90A of tower 20A is opened, exhaust valve 94B of tower 20B is opened, and purge valve 92C of tower 20C is opened, while the remaining valves 92-94A, 90-92B, and 90C and 94C are closed.”) whereby the processing unit is configured
to operate the first chamber first valve to seal the first chamber from the outlet manifold (fig. 2, 94A is closed), and
to operate the first chamber second valve to expose the first chamber to the inlet manifold (fig. 2, 90A is open), and
to operate the second chamber first valve to seal the second chamber from the outlet manifold (fig. 2, 94C is closed),
and
to operate the second chamber second valve to seal the second chamber from the inlet manifold (fig. 2, 90C is closed), and
to operate the third chamber first valve to expose the third chamber to the outlet manifold (fig. 2, 94B is open) and
to operate the third chamber second valve to seal the third chamber from the inlet manifold (fig. 2, 90B is closed),
wherein the regenerative thermal oxidizer is configured to enable contaminated gas to enter the inlet manifold (col. 1 ll. 63-65, “As such, the inlet valves 90A-C are operatively coupled to an inlet manifold or duct 100, which receives solvent-laden air from a pollution source 102.”) and to enable processed gas to exit the regenerative thermal oxidizer via the outlet manifold (col. 1 l. 67 – col. 2 l. 5, “Finally, the exhaust valves 94A-C are operatively coupled to an exhaust manifold or duct 130 that is operatively coupled to an electrically powered exhaust blower 140 that expels air that is oxidized and cleaned by the RTO 10 into the exhaust stack 120.”),
But fails to teach wherein the first chamber first valve, the first chamber second valve, the second chamber first valve, the second chamber second valve, the third chamber first valve, the third chamber second valve are all poppet valves, each of the poppet valves comprising a blade which is movable between a respective first position and a respective second position, wherein positions of the first chamber first valve and the first chamber second valve determine which mode the first chamber is in, wherein positions of the second chamber first valve and the second chamber second valve determine which mode the second chamber is in, wherein positions of the third chamber first valve and the third chamber second valve determine which mode the third chamber is in.
De Clerc teaches a valve arrangement for a regenerative thermal oxidizer having poppet valves (abstract, “Anti-leak two-port and three-port poppet valves for a regenerative thermal oxidizer … In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the switching valves are horizontal pneumatic poppet type valves in a consolidated housing …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a suitable valve arrangements, as taught by De Clerc, as the valve groups 70A-C of Friend. Thus, the device of modified Friend would teach the first, second, and third chamber first and second valves being poppet valves. Using the suitable valve arrangement of De Clerc would provide suitable structure to achieve the predictable result of alternating the heat transfer zones to provide matrix regeneration, as suggested by De Clerc in the abstract, “The alternating of the heat transfer zones to provide matrix regeneration is accomplished via regenerative thermal oxidizer switching valves.”
The combination additionally teaches each of the poppet valves comprising a blade (De Clerc fig. 1, disk 18) which is movable between a respective first position and a respective second position (De Clerc pp. 6-7, “At the distal end of the actuating shaft 16 relative to the cylinder 12 is a disk 18 which seals against either of rolled angle flange damper seats 19, 19’, depending on the valve open or closed position.” Thus, disk 18 has an open and closed position), wherein positions of the first chamber first valve and the first chamber second valve determine which mode the first chamber is in (whether the first chamber first and second valves are opened or closed determine which mode the chamber is in), wherein positions of the second chamber first valve and the second chamber second valve determine which mode the second chamber is in (whether the second chamber first and second valves are opened or closed determine which mode the chamber is in), wherein positions of the third chamber first valve and the third chamber second valve determine which mode the third chamber is in (whether the third chamber first and second valves are opened or closed determine which mode the chamber is in).
Regarding the newly recited limitations:
The combination teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to define a plurality of sequences that, for each of the first, second, and third chambers, specify open or closed sate of that chamber’s first valve, second valve, and purge valve for a corresponding sequence, and to automatically position respective valves in accordance with a current sequence (The controller of Friend is understood to automatically operate the respective valves based on a plurality of sequences, Friend col. 4 ll. 40-43, “The purge air control system 200 provides a controller 250 that is electrically (and/or through programming) coupled to the inlet, purge, and outlet valves 90-94A-C”); and, upon expiration of a predetermined sequence duration (Friend, “purge time”, fig. 3 step 450, described in col. 6 starting in l. 24, “Next, at step 450 the controller 250 carrying out the process 400 determines or otherwise estimates that the sequencing of valves 90A-C, 92A-C, 94A-C to identify the elapsed time of each purge, which is referred to herein as the purge time.”), effect a transition to a next sequence by causing respective valves to take their respective states for the next sequence thereby interchanging operating modes of the first, second, and third chambers and continuing the sequences in succession during continuous operation (in Friend, the valves of the chambers are understood to be automatically transitioned to achieve the desired operating modes).
Regarding claim 2. The device of modified Friend teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to put the regenerative thermal oxidizer into a second sequence (Friend col. 2 ll. 42-55, “… by alternating the operating function of each of the towers 20A-C between an inlet mode, outlet mode, and purge mode during successive operating cycles …” Therefore, the RTO is understood to operate by cycling each tower through the modes of inlet – purge – exhaust. The cycle immediately following that of Friend fig. 2 could be considered a second sequence, as explained further below) whereby the processing unit is configured
to operate the first chamber first valve to seal the first chamber from the outlet manifold (Friend fig. 2 shows the tower 20A in the inlet mode, during the next timed interval, it would be in a purge mode. During the purge mode of 20A, 94A would be closed), and
to operate the first chamber second valve to seal the first chamber from the inlet manifold (similarly, during the purge mode of 20A, 90A would be closed), and
to operate the second chamber first valve to expose the second chamber to the outlet manifold (Friend fig. 2 shows the tower 20C in the purge mode, during the next timed interval, it would be in an exhaust mode. During the exhaust mode of 20C, 94C would be open) and
to operate the second chamber second valve to seal the second chamber from the inlet manifold (similarly, during the exhaust mode of 20C, 90C would be closed), and
to operate the third chamber first valve to seal the third chamber from the outlet manifold (Friend fig. 2 shows the tower 20B in the exhaust mode, during the next timed interval, it would be in an inlet mode. During the inlet mode of 20B, 94B would be closed) and
to operate the third chamber second valve to expose the third chamber to the inlet manifold (similarly, during the inlet mode of 20B, 90B would be open),
Regarding claim 3. The device of modified Friend teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein the processing unit is further configured such that in the second sequence (sequence after that of Friend fig. 2) a first chamber purge valve is opened (Friend fig. 2, the tower 20A would be in the purge mode in the next timed interval, thus, 92A would be open) while the second chamber purge valve is closed (Friend fig. 2, the tower 20C would be in the exhaust mode in the next timed interval, thus, 92C would be closed) and the third chamber purge valve is closed (Friend fig. 2, the tower 20B would be in the inlet mode in the next timed interval, thus, 92B would be closed).
Regarding claim 5. The device of modified Friend teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 3, wherein the apparatus is further configured to clean out the first chamber in in the second sequence (Friend fig. 2, the tower 20A would be in the purge mode in the next timed interval. Therefore, the contaminated air in the tower is purged with clean air, as described in Friend col. 3 ll. 26-39, “Somewhat simultaneously with the evacuation of the cleaned air from the exhaust stack 120, a portion of the clean air is drawn from the exhaust stack 120 and delivered to the tower 20C via the purge duct 110 where it passes through the purge valve 92C and the media 30C before being drawn into the cleaned airflow passing through the heat-exchange media 30B and out through the exhaust duct 130. Because the media 30C and the lower plenum have accumulated pollutants and contaminates from the intake of solvent-laden air during a previous inlet operating mode, the purging of the heat exchange media 30C and lower plenum with cleaned air from the exhaust stack 120 prevents those pollutants and solvent laden air from being output at the exhaust stack 120 when the tower 20C is operated in a subsequent exhaust mode.”).
Regarding claim 4. The device of modified Friend teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured such that in the first sequence (sequence of Friend fig. 2) a second chamber purge valve is opened (Friend fig. 2, 92C is open) while the first chamber purge valve is closed (Friend fig. 2, 92A is closed) and the third chamber purge valve is closed (Friend fig. 2, 92B is closed).
Regarding claim 6. The device of modified Friend teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 4, wherein the apparatus is further configured to clean out the second chamber in the first sequence (Friend fig. 2, the tower 20C is in the purge mode. Therefore, the contaminated air in the tower is purged with clean air, as described in Friend col. 3 ll. 26-39, “Somewhat simultaneously with the evacuation of the cleaned air from the exhaust stack 120, a portion of the clean air is drawn from the exhaust stack 120 and delivered to the tower 20C via the purge duct 110 where it passes through the purge valve 92C and the media 30C before being drawn into the cleaned airflow passing through the heat-exchange media 30B and out through the exhaust duct 130. Because the media 30C and the lower plenum have accumulated pollutants and contaminates from the intake of solvent-laden air during a previous inlet operating mode, the purging of the heat exchange media 30C and lower plenum with cleaned air from the exhaust stack 120 prevents those pollutants and solvent laden air from being output at the exhaust stack 120 when the tower 20C is operated in a subsequent exhaust mode.”).
Regarding claim 13. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 15. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 18. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Hoang can be reached on (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762