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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “to reduce its power consumption to transfer the alkaline solution to the one or more blades” is not disclosed in the instant specification or original claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0296881 A1 (hereinafter referred as “Douglas”), in view of GB 2546251A (hereinafter referred as “He”), WO 2008/115662 (hereinafter referred as “Graupner”), AU 2007231797 (hereinafter referred as “Nove”), US 2009/0212560 A1 (hereinafter referred as “Larsen”), and US 2011/0103950 (hereinafter referred as “Pesetsky”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Douglas teaches a method, system and apparatus for removal of carbon dioxide from air by distributing hydroxide (alkaline solution) into atmospheric air (abstract). Douglas also discloses that the hydroxide and/or fluid may be released via a moving article or object such as blades on a windmill or wind turbine, and that it may be preferable to utilize a propelled aerosol to achieve appropriate dispersion of the hydroxide [0015]. Douglas further adds that a receptacle on a tower may be used to pump, spray, or otherwise release the hydroxide into the air [0026], and that the apparatus may be configured to aerosolize the hydroxide. In this regard, the aerosol may be formed with a propellant gas, or may simply be sprayed as a fine mist of solid particles or aqueous solution, and that use of known aerosolizing techniques may be employed [0037].
Therefore, Douglas suggests spraying sodium hydroxide solution into atmosphere via blades on a wind turbine using known techniques to capture carbon dioxide from atmosphere. Use of pump to supply hydroxide to the blades would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since use of pump to supply liquid is well known. The limitation “using centrifugal force produced by rotation of the one or more blades” does not impart additional structure. Centrifugal force is inherently present while blades are rotating. Douglas does not disclose a spar buoy, the wind turbine generator is coupled to the spar buoy; a desalination system, disposed within the spar buoy.
He teaches an offshore wind turbine (1) comprising a spar buoy, a wind turbine generator (26) for generating electrical energy comprising one or more blades (12), wherein the wind turbine generator is coupled to the spar buoy (refer fig. 1); a desalination system is disposed within spar buoy (page 6-lines 11-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Douglas to include an offshore wind turbine comprising a spar buoy, wherein the wind turbine generator is coupled to the spar buoy and a desalination system disposed within the spar buoy because He establishes that such configuration is known in the art to provide an offshore resource. He also teaches that the electricity generated by wind turbine is used in desalination (Refer abstract, P1/L17-21, P6/L19-32).
Modified Douglas does not disclose that the desalination produces brine, means for producing an alkaline solution from brine.
Graupner teaches a method of capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide for ocean sequestration, the method comprising the steps of: generating electric power via a wind turbine generator (302) located in a saltwater environment; using the electric power generated via the wind turbine generator, to produce sodium hydroxide (through electrolysis of seawater through unit 304); and emitting the sodium hydroxide solution into an air stream passing through a carbon dioxide sequester (200). Graupner discloses that sodium hydroxide is produced from seawater or brine ([0012], claim 35). Graupner does not disclose desalinating salt water from the saltwater environment, using the electric power generated via the wind turbine generator, to produce brine; and processing the produced brine to produce sodium hydroxide.
Nove teaches a desalination plant comprising a floating structure adapted to be positioned in a body of seawater, a wind turbine mounted to the floating structure, and a desalination unit located at the floating structure and being operatively coupled to the wind turbine for driving the desalination unit which is adapted to produce desalinated water and brine from the body of seawater (abstract, P6/L4-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus/system of Douglas to include a desalination unit to produce desalinated water and brine, further processing brine to produce sodium hydroxide to utilize the energy produced by the wind turbine to generate desalinated water and sodium hydroxide as disclosed by Graupner and Nove.
Modified Douglas does not disclose that the desalination system uses heat generated from the turbine.
Larsen teaches a heating system includes at least one wind turbine, one or more wind turbine components producing surplus heat, and one or more cooling systems for removal of the surplus heat from the wind turbine components. The heating system also includes a mechanism for transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to heating processes in at least one location external to the at least one wind turbine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heat generated by the wind turbine by transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to external systems in the system of modified Douglas as taught by Larsen. Where to utilize the heat would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As indicated above, Douglas discloses that the apparatus may be configured to aerosolize the hydroxide, and that the aerosol may be formed with a propellant gas, or may simply be sprayed as a fine mist of solid particles or aqueous solution, and that use of known aerosolizing techniques may be employed [0037]. Douglas does not disclose that the system comprising a pump for conveying the alkaline solution to the means for emitting the alkaline solution into an air stream passing through the one or more blades, wherein the pump uses centrifugal force induced by the one or more blades.
Pesetsky teaches a wind turbine blade system having a plurality of blades (108), a plurality of openings (203) disposed along at least one surface of the blade, a fluid moving device (207) arranged and disposed to provide a fluid to or from the one or more openings (abstract). Pesetsky teaches that fluids such as water or other liquids may be provided to openings 203 [0032]. Pesetsky also teaches that when disposed along the span of the blade 108 with the modules 205 in suction mode positioned near the blade root and the modules 205 in blowing mode positioned near the blade tip, the power requirements of the fluid moving device 207 are reduced due to a centrifugal pumping effect of the suction/blowing flow stream for a system-level power performance benefit [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of modified Douglas to provide a pump to pump the alkaline solution, wherein the pump uses centrifugal force induced by the blades to reduce power requirement as taught by Pesetsky. The limitation “to reduce its power consumption to transfer the alkaline solution to one or more blades” does not impart additional structure to pump that is used to pump alkaline solution as taught by the combination above.
Regarding claim 3, Nove discloses that the desalination includes reverse osmosis units (page 3/L16-21).
Regarding claim 4, Nove teaches using electricity generated wind energy to operate reverse osmosis system (P5/L7-17). He also teaches using electricity generated by the wind turbine to operate the desalination system (P3/L14-16).
Regarding claim 8, Graupner teaches providing an electrolysis unit (404) producing sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid (refer fig. 4, [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Larsen teaches that he heating system also includes a mechanism for transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to heating processes in at least one location external to the at least one wind turbine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heat generated by the wind turbine by transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to external systems in the system of modified Douglas as taught by Larsen. Where to utilize the heat would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, He teaches that the water treatment system is a thermal desalination or multistage flash desalinator or vacuum distillation unit (P6/L28-31). It is well known in the art that thermal desalination systems comprise an evaporator and condenser.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas, in view of He, Graupner, Nove, Larsen and Pesetsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 11147−11162 (hereinafter referred as “Thiel”).
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Douglas teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Douglas does not teach that the means for producing the alkaline solution comprises a brine purification system and a brine concentration system.
Theil teaches utilization of desalination brine for sodium hydroxide production (abstract), wherein the method comprises purifying the brine to produce purified brine, increasing salt concentration of the purified brine to produce concentrated brine, and performing electrolysis on the concentrated brine to produce sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and chlorine (refer fig. 3).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply known technique of purifying the brine to produce purified brine, increasing salt concentration of the purified brine to produce concentrated brine, and performing electrolysis on the concentrated brine to produce sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and chlorine as disclosed by Theil in the system of modified Douglas to yield predictable results of producing sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and chlorine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of modified Douglas to provide a pump to pump the alkaline solution, wherein the pump uses centrifugal force induced by the blades to reduce power requirement as taught by Pesetsky.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/115662 (hereinafter referred as “Graupner”), in view of US 2016/0296881 A1 (hereinafter referred as “Douglas”), AU 2007231797 (hereinafter referred as “Nove”), GB 2546251A (hereinafter referred as “He”), and US 2009/0212560 A1 (hereinafter referred as “Larsen”), and US 2011/0103950 (hereinafter referred as “Pesetsky”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Graupner teaches a carbon dioxide capture device comprising a wind turbine generator (302) comprising blades; means for producing sodium hydroxide (through electrolysis of seawater through unit 304); and emitting the sodium hydroxide solution into an air stream passing through a carbon dioxide sequester (200). Graupner discloses that sodium hydroxide is produced from seawater or brine ([0012], claim 35). Graupner discloses that electricity produced by the wind turbine is used for powering unit 304 (refer [0069]).
Graupner does not disclose emitting sodium hydroxide solution into air stream through one or more blades.
Douglas teaches a method, system and apparatus for removal of carbon dioxide from air by distributing hydroxide (alkaline solution) into atmospheric air (abstract). Douglas also discloses that the hydroxide and/or fluid may be released via a moving article or object such as blades on a windmill or wind turbine, and that it may be preferable to utilize a propelled aerosol to achieve appropriate dispersion of the hydroxide [0015]. Douglas further adds that “a receptacle on a tower may be used to pump, spray, or otherwise release the hydroxide into the air [0026], and that the apparatus may be configured to aerosolize the hydroxide. In this regard, the aerosol may be formed with a propellant gas, or may simply be sprayed as a fine mist of solid particles or aqueous solution, and that use of known aerosolizing techniques may be employed [0037]”. Douglas also discloses that “Other research efforts have been directed to the capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air, but have required the air to be processed, such as in an air capture collector and subsequently passed through a filter. Such efforts are generally quite energy intensive and may not result in a net reduction in carbon levels. However, the presently disclosed method may be implemented with existing technologies and significant additional energy inputs may not be required” [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system Graupner to release sodium hydroxide from blades of wind turbine to react, in Earth's atmosphere, with atmospheric carbon dioxide to form sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate droplets; and mixing the sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate droplets into the saltwater environment and sequestering the sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate within the saltwater environment because Douglas discloses that releasing sodium hydroxide from blades of wind turbine requires less energy.
Graupner discloses that sodium hydroxide is produced from seawater or brine ([0012], claim 35). Graupner also discloses that filtered seawater or brine is required in electrolysis chamber (refer [0072], [0074]; fig. 4). Graupner does not disclose desalinating salt water from the saltwater environment, using the electric power generated via the wind turbine generator, to produce brine; and processing the produced brine to produce sodium hydroxide.
Nove teaches a desalination plant comprising a floating structure adapted to be positioned in a body of seawater, a wind turbine mounted to the floating structure, and a desalination unit located at the floating structure and being operatively coupled to the wind turbine for driving the desalination unit which is adapted to produce desalinated water and brine from the body of seawater (abstract, P6/L4-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of modified Graupner to include a desalination unit to produce brine and desalinated water to enable production of sodium hydroxide and utilize the energy produced by the wind turbine to generate desalinated water, brine and sodium hydroxide as disclosed by Graupner and Nove.
Modified Graupner does not disclose a spar buoy, the wind turbine generator is coupled to the spar buoy; a desalination system, disposed within the spar buoy.
He teaches an offshore wind turbine (1) comprising a spar buoy, a wind turbine generating comprising one or more blades (12), wherein the wind turbine generator is coupled to the spar buoy (refer fig. 1); a desalination system is disposed within spar buoy (page 6-lines 11-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Douglas to include an offshore wind turbine comprising a spar buoy, wherein the wind turbine generator is coupled to the spar buoy and a desalination system disposed within the spar buoy because He establishes that such configuration is known in the art to provide an offshore resource.
Modified Douglas does not disclose that the desalination system uses heat generated from the turbine.
Larsen teaches a heating system includes at least one wind turbine, one or more wind turbine components producing surplus heat, and one or more cooling systems for removal of the surplus heat from the wind turbine components. The heating system also includes a mechanism for transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to heating processes in at least one location external to the at least one wind turbine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heat generated by the wind turbine by transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to external systems in the system of modified Douglas as taught by Larsen. Where to utilize the heat would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As indicated above, Douglas discloses that the apparatus may be configured to aerosolize the hydroxide, and that the aerosol may be formed with a propellant gas, or may simply be sprayed as a fine mist of solid particles or aqueous solution, and that use of known aerosolizing techniques may be employed [0037]. Douglas does not disclose that the system comprising a pump for conveying the alkaline solution to the means for emitting the alkaline solution into an air stream passing through the one or more blades, wherein the pump uses centrifugal force induced by the one or more blades.
Pesetsky teaches a wind turbine blade system having a plurality of blades (108), a plurality of openings (203) disposed along at least one surface of the blade, a fluid moving device (207) arranged and disposed to provide a fluid to or from the one or more openings (abstract). Pesetsky teaches that fluids such as water or other liquids may be provided to openings 203 [0032]. Pesetsky also teaches that When disposed along the span of the blade 108 with the modules 205 in suction mode positioned near the blade root and the modules 205 in blowing mode positioned near the blade tip, the power requirements of the fluid moving device 207 are reduced due to a centrifugal pumping effect of the suction/blowing flow stream for a system-level power performance benefit [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of modified Douglas to provide a pump to pump the alkaline solution, wherein the pump uses centrifugal force induced by the blades to reduce power requirement as taught by Pesetsky. The limitation “to reduce its power consumption to transfer the alkaline solution to one or more blades” does not impart additional structure to pump that is used to pump alkaline solution as taught by the combination above.
Regarding claim 3, Nove discloses that the desalination includes reverse osmosis units (page 3/L16-21).
Regarding claim 4, Nove teaches using electricity generated wind energy to operate reverse osmosis system (P5/L7-17). He also teaches using electricity generated by the wind turbine to operate the desalination system (P3/L14-16).
Regarding claim 8, Graupner teaches providing an electrolysis unit (404) producing sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid (refer fig. 4, [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Larsen teaches that he heating system also includes a mechanism for transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to heating processes in at least one location external to the at least one wind turbine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heat generated by the wind turbine by transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to external systems in the system of modified Douglas as taught by Larsen. Where to utilize the heat would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, He teaches that the water treatment system is a thermal desalination or multistage flash desalinator or vacuum distillation unit (P6/L28-31). It is well known in the art that thermal desalination systems comprise an evaporator and condenser.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupner, in view of Douglas, Nove, He, Larsen and Pesetsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 102726336 (hereinafter referred as “Wen”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Graupner teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. As indicated above, Douglas discloses that the apparatus may be configured to aerosolize the hydroxide, and that the aerosol may be formed with a propellant gas, or may simply be sprayed as a fine mist of solid particles or aqueous solution, and that use of known aerosolizing techniques may be employed [0037]. Douglas does not explicitly disclose that a plurality of nozzles are disposed on the one or more blades. However, Wen discloses a windmill comprising a plurality of blades, each having nozzle to spray liquid (abstract, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of nozzles on the blades of the wind turbine of modified Douglas because Wen establishes that it is well known to use nozzle(s) on blades of windmills and Douglas suggest using known techniques.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupner, in view of Douglas, Nove, He, Larsen and Pesetsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 11147−11162 (hereinafter referred as “Thiel”).
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Graupner teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Graupner does not teach that the means for producing the alkaline solution comprises a brine purification system and a brine concentration system.
Theil teaches utilization of desalination brine for sodium hydroxide production (abstract), wherein the method comprises purifying the brine to produce purified brine, increasing salt concentration of the purified brine to produce concentrated brine, and performing electrolysis on the concentrated brine to produce sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and chlorine (refer fig. 3).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply known technique of purifying the brine to produce purified brine, increasing salt concentration of the purified brine to produce concentrated brine, and performing electrolysis on the concentrated brine to produce sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and chlorine as disclosed by Theil in the system of modified Graupner to yield predictable results of producing sodium hydroxide, hydrogen and chlorine.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graupner, in view of Douglas, Nove, He, Larsen and Thiel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2009/0212560 A1 (hereinafter referred as “Larsen”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Graupner teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Graupner does not disclose wherein the means for producing the alkaline solution comprises a heater using heat from the wind turbine generator.
Larsen teaches a heating system includes at least one wind turbine, one or more wind turbine components producing surplus heat, and one or more cooling systems for removal of the surplus heat from the wind turbine components. The heating system also includes a mechanism for transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to heating processes in at least one location external to the at least one wind turbine (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heat generated by the wind turbine by transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to external systems in the system of modified Graupner as taught by Larsen. Where to utilize the heat would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1, applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
274
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because Douglas discloses that a receptacle on a tower may be used to pump, spray, or otherwise release the hydroxide into the air [0026], and that the apparatus may be configured to aerosolize the hydroxide. In this regard, the aerosol may be formed with a propellant gas, or may simply be sprayed as a fine mist of solid particles or aqueous solution, and that use of known aerosolizing techniques may be employed [0037]. Use of pump to supply hydroxide to the blades would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since use of pump to supply liquid is well known.
Applicant further argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
180
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because Douglas discloses that the hydroxide and/or fluid may be released via a moving article or object such as blades on a windmill or wind turbine, and that it may be preferable to utilize a propelled aerosol to achieve appropriate dispersion of the hydroxide [0015]. Pesetsky discloses utilizing centrifugal force (refer claim rejections above).
Applicant further argued:
PNG
media_image4.png
316
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
184
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because the claim do not recite any specific application of the heat produced by the wind turbine generator. The claim recite that “wherein the desalination system produces brine from marine environment using power and heat produced by the wind turbine generator”. Larsen teaches a heating system includes at least one wind turbine, one or more wind turbine components producing surplus heat, and one or more cooling systems for removal of the surplus heat from the wind turbine components. The heating system also includes a mechanism for transporting at least a part of the surplus heat to heating processes in at least one location external to the at least one wind turbine (abstract). The disclosure of Larsen suggest using heat produced by the turbine to be used elsewhere and therefore makes it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heat produced by the turbine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777