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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on October 21, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 20 2021 105 752.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “Fig. 1” (at line 11) should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14, 18, 20-22, 24-26, 29, 31, and 34 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.
Regarding claim 3, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “a downstream end, at which the check valve (4) is provided” (at lines 2-3), and the claim also recites “to which it is preferably fastened” (at line 3), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In addition, the claim recites the broad recitation “a fluid line (3) with a downstream end” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “the fluid line (3) preferably having an upstream end, at which the feed valve (2) is provided” (at lines 3-4), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claims.
Furthermore, the recitation of “the feed valve (2)” (at line 4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the broad recitation “a through opening (241, 241’), in which the check valve (4) is received and/or fastened” (at lines 2-3), and the claim also recites “the fastening preferably taking place via a non-positive and/or positively locking connection” (at lines 3-4) and “for example via a screw connection” (at line 4), which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the broad recitation “the housing (42) extending at least partially in the lid (24)” (at line 4), and the claim also recites “for example in its through opening (241, 241’)” (at lines 4-5), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Furthermore, the recitation of “its through opening (241, 241’)” (at line 5) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the broad recitation “the housing (42) being fastened to the lid (24)” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “for example via a non-positive and/or positively locking connection” (at lines 2-3) and “preferably via a screw connection” (at line 3), which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the broad recitation “the check valve (4) having an elastic element (43)” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “such as, for example, a spring” (at lines 2-3), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Furthermore, the recitation of “the seal seat (42)” (at line 4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that “a seal seat (421)” was set forth in claim 6 (at line 3).
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “the further lid (242)” (at line 3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Furthermore, the claim recites the broad recitation “having, furthermore, a shell (21) which is provided in the lower part (20) and at least partially delimits the reaction chamber (22), at least part of the further lid (242)” (at lines 2-3), and the claim also recites “preferably a flange region” (at line 4) and “preferably being provided between the shell (21) and the lid (24)” (at line 4), which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the broad recitation “the line (5) extending into the lid (24)” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “preferably being provided at least partially in the through opening (241) of the lid (24)” (at lines 2-3), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Furthermore, the recitation of “the through opening (241)” (at lines 2-3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the broad recitation “the line (5) extending in the further lid (242) and/or being provided at least partially in the through opening (242a) of the further lid (242)” (at lines 4-5), and the claim also recites “the line (5) preferably not extending into the lid (24)” (at lines 5-6), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the line (5) having a flange region (51, 51’), via which the line (5) is received” is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element of the pressure vessel “receives” the line (5) via the flange region (51, 51’).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the broad recitation “the flange region (51) being provided… in or on the further lid (242)” (at lines 2-3), and the claim also recites “preferably supported in or on the further lid (242)” (at lines 3) and “in particular on a step” (at line 3), which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. In addition, the claim recites the broad recitation “the flange region (51’) being provided… in the lid (24)” (at lines 4-5), and the claim also recites “preferably supported in the lid (24)” (at line 5) and “in particular in its through opening (241) or on the step of the through opening (241)” (at lines 5-6), which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim.
Furthermore, the recitations of “the further lid (242)” (at line 3), “its/the through opening (241)” (at lines 5-6), and “the step of the through opening (241)” (at line 6) lack proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the broad recitation “the line (5) being produced at least partially from plastic” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “such as, for example, PTFE” (at lines 2-3), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “the fluid inlet (FE) being arranged in such as way that it is directed onto the protective element (23)” (at line 5) is unclear. It is suggested that the word “it” be changed to --fluid--.
Furthermore, the claim recites the broad recitation “the fluid inlet (FE) being arranged in such a way that it is directed onto the protective element (23)” (at lines 4-5), and the claim also recites “the line (5) preferably extending into the upper region” (at lines 7-8), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In addition, the claim recites the broad recitation “an upper region… of the reaction chamber (22)” (at lines 3-4), and the claim also recites “the further lid (242) preferably delimiting the upper region” (at line 8), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim.
Furthermore, the recitations of “the line (5)” (at line 7) and “the further lid (242)” (at line 8) lack proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the broad recitation “the control device being configured to control the fluid inlet (FE)” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “in particular the feed valve (2)” (at line 2), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Furthermore, the recitation of “the feed valve (2)” (at line 2) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 31, the recitation of “the feed and discharge valve (2, 28)” (at lines 7-8) is considered indefinite. Firstly, “the feed… valve (2…)” lacks proper positive antecedent basis. Secondly, the recitation refers to two different valves, and therefore, it is suggested that the recitation be changed to --the feed valve (2) and the discharge valve (28)--.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites the broad recitation “the lid (24) being produced at least partially from steel” (at line 2), and the claim also recites “such as, for example, NiCr21Mo14W” (at line 3), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In addition, the claim recites the broad recitation “the lower part (20) being produced at least partially from steel” (at line 4), and the claim also recites “such as, for example, NiCr21Mo14W” (at lines 4-5), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In addition, the claim recites the broad recitation “the check valve (4)… being produced at least partially from steel” (at lines 6-7), and the claim also recites “preferably its closing element (41) and/or housing (42), being produced at least partially from steel” (at lines 6-7) and “such as, for example, NiCr21Mo14W” (at lines 7), which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claims.
Furthermore, the recitations of “its closing element (41)” (at line 6) and “its… housing (42)” (at line 6) lack proper positive antecedent basis.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
A. Claim rejections based on a first embodiment of the check valve, in which the seal seat is provided at least partially within the lid.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14, 26-27, 29-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lautenschläger ‘828 (US 2020/0038828 A1) in view of Lautenschläger ‘608 (US 2011/0226608 A1) and Kurdziel et al. (US 2020/0063918 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lautenschläger ‘828 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0045], and [0049]) comprising:
a lower part (i.e., a pot-shaped lower part 3) and a lid (i.e., a cover part 4) which can be closed together and which, in the closed state, surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiating and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples P received in the reaction chamber; and
a fluid inlet 20 with a check valve 23 for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber.
Lautenschläger ‘828 fails to disclose that the lower part 3 and the lid 4 are configured such that they can be locked to one another, in order, in the state in which they are locked to another, to surround the reaction chamber 2 on all sides as said pressure space.
Lautenschläger ‘608 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 10; paragraphs [0058], [0114]) comprising: a lower part 5 and a lid 6 which can be closed together to surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides; and a fluid inlet FE with a check valve (i.e., a non-return valve 203) for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber. Specifically, Lautenschläger ‘608 discloses that the lower part 5 and the lid 6 can be locked to one another, in order, in the state in which they are locked to one another, to surround the reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiating and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples P received in the reaction chamber (as shown in FIG. 1, 5, and 9, the lower part 5 and the lid part 6 are provided with flange regions 50,60, and the lower part 5 and the lid part 6 are pressed together by clamp halves 109,110 arranged about the flange regions 50,60 such that the pressure vessel 1 surrounds and forms a securely locked pressure-resistant reaction chamber 2; see paragraphs [0059], [0086]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lower part and the lid such that they can be locked to one another in the pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the lower part and the lid could then be securely closed and locked when initiating and/or promoting the chemical and/or physical pressure reactions in the reaction chamber, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘608.
Lautenschläger ‘828 (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the check valve 23 is connected to a feed line 22 and located outside of the lid 4. Lautenschläger ‘828 fails to disclose that the check valve 23 extends at least partially in the lid 4.
Kurdziel et al. discloses a pressure vessel 100 (see FIG. 2-3) comprising: a lower part (i.e., a canister 102) and a lid (i.e., an end cap 104), wherein the lower part and the lid are coupled to one another to define a chamber 204 as a pressure space; and a fluid inlet (i.e., a fluid charging port 208) with a check valve (i.e., a one-way valve 240; see paragraphs [0017]-[0018]) for feeding a fluid into the chamber 204. Specifically, Kurdziel et al. discloses that the check valve 240 extends at least partially in the lid 104.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shift the location of the check valve such that the check valve extended at least partially in the lid in the pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the positioning of the check valve within the lid would have been prevented the check valve from being damaged, such as during handling, installation, and/or maintenance of the pressure vessel, as taught by Kurdziel et al. (see paragraph [0003]). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device was held to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04, VI, C.
Regarding claim 2, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0045], [0049]) further discloses that the fluid inlet 20 has a feed valve 21 upstream of the check valve 23, wherein the feed valve 21 can be adjusted between an open position for feeding the fluid into the reaction chamber 2 and a closed position for stopping the feed of the fluid.
Regarding claim 3, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1, paragraph [0048]) further discloses that the fluid inlet 20 has a fluid line (i.e., the feed line 22), wherein “The check valve 23 is configured to stop the feed of the fluid via the fluid inlet 20 into the reaction chamber 2 as soon as a particular pressure has been reached in the reaction chamber 2. For this purpose, it is preferable if the check valve 23 is provided downstream of the feed valve 21 and in the feed line 22.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the fluid line to have a downstream end, at which the check valve is provided and fastened, and an upstream end, at which the feed valve is provided, in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828.
Regarding claim 4, Lautenschläger ‘828 (see FIG. 1) discloses that the lid 4 has a through opening. Kurdziel et al. (see FIG. 3) also discloses that the lid 104 has a through opening (i.e., a passageway 230), wherein the check valve 240 is received and fastened in the through opening 230 via a screw connection (i.e., a housing 301 of the one-way valve 240 is threaded into a first section 232 of the passageway 230 to secure the one-way valve 240 within the first section 232 and couple the one-way valve 240 to the end cap 104; see paragraph [0018]), and wherein the through opening 230 has a step (i.e., defining a second section 234 of smaller diameter) on which the check valve 240 lies directly. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive and fasten the check valve in the through opening of the lid according to the claimed manner in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the check valve would be securely received in and coupled to the lid, as taught by Kurdziel et al.
Regarding claim 6, Lautenschläger ‘828 shows the check valve 23 (see FIG. 1) as having a closing element (i.e., ball) and a housing (i.e., a housing containing the ball and a spring), the housing having a seal seat with an opening (i.e., at the inlet to the check valve 23) which can be closed by way of the closing element. Kurdziel et al. (FIG. 3; paragraph [0018]) also discloses that the check valve 240 has a closing element (i.e., a ball 302) and a housing 301; the housing having a seal seat 300 with an opening which can be closed by way of the closing element 302; and the housing 301 extending at least partially in the through opening 230 of the lid 104. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the claimed check valve to extend at least partially in the through opening of the the lid in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828.
Regarding claim 7, Kurdziel et al. (see FIG. 3) further discloses that the seal seat 300 is provided at least partially within the lid 104.
Regarding claim 9, Kurdziel et al. (see FIG. 3) further discloses that the housing 301 is fastened to the lid 104 via a screw connection (i.e., the housing 301 of the one-way valve 240 is threaded into a first section 232 of the passageway 230; see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further shows the closing element (i.e., ball) of the check valve 23 as having a spherical configuration. Kurdziel et al. (FIG. 3) also discloses that the closing element (i.e., the ball 302) has a spherical configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Lautenschläger ‘828 (see FIG. 1) further shows the check valve 23 as comprising an elastic element in the form of a spring, which elastic element is arranged in such a way that its restoring force stresses or presses the closing element in the direction of the seal seat (i.e., the spring urges the ball towards the seat proximate the inlet of the check valve 23). Kurdziel et al. (see FIG. 3) also discloses that the check valve 240 has an elastic element comprising a spring 306, wherein the elastic element is arranged in such a way that its restoring force stresses or presses the closing element 302 in the direction of the seal seat 300 (i.e., the spring 306 urges or biases a plunger 304 toward the seat 300, and, as a result, the plunger 304 presses the ball 301 against the seat 300; see paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Lautenschläger ‘828 further shows the pressure vessel 1 as having a further lid (i.e., an inner lining of the lid 4; see FIG. 1) downstream of the check valve 23; wherein the lid 4 and the further lid have a through opening (shown) via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2. Lautenschläger ‘828, however, fails to disclose that the further lid is produced at least partially from plastic.
Lautenschläger ‘608 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0057], [0062]) further discloses that the pressure vessel 1 comprises a further lid (i.e., an insulation lining 3,31) downstream of the check valve 203 (FIG. 10); wherein the lid 6 and the further lid 3,31 have a through opening via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2; and wherein, specifically, the further lid 3,31 is produced at least partially from plastic (i.e., plastic, PTFE; see paragraph [0022], [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the inner lid at least partially from plastic in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the plastic would serve as an insulator of the pressure vessel, and the plastic would also serve as corrosion protection for an inner wall of the pressure vessel and as protection of the inner wall with respect to chemical contamination by the samples, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘608 (see paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Lautenschläger ‘828 further shows the pressure vessel 1 as having a shell provided in the lower part and at least partially delimiting the reaction chamber 2, and a further lid having a flange region provided between the shell and the lid 4 (i.e., the lower portion 3 and the lid 4 each have an inner lining; see FIG. 1). Lautenschläger ‘828, however, fails to disclose the shell is produced at least partially from plastic.
Lautenschläger ‘608 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0057], [0062]) discloses that the pressure vessel 1 further comprises a shell (i.e., an insulation lining 3,30 comprising a vessel insert 9) provided in the lower part 5 and at least partially delimits the reaction chamber 2; and a further lid (i.e., insulation lining 3,31) having a flange region being provided between the shell 3,30,9 and the lid 6; wherein, specifically, the shell 3,30,9 is produced at least partially from plastic (i.e., plastic, PTFE; see paragraph [0022], [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the shell at least partially from plastic in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the plastic would serve as an insulator of the pressure vessel, and the plastic would also serve as corrosion protection for an inner wall of the pressure vessel and as protection of the inner wall with respect to chemical contamination by the samples, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘608 (see paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 26, Lautenschläger ‘828 further discloses a protective element which extends in the reaction chamber 2 at least partially between an upper region and a lower region of the reaction chamber, in order to cover the lower region at least partially (i.e., a protective element defined by an upper horizontal plate of a sample holder 7, see FIG. 2); the fluid inlet 20 being arranged in such a way that fluid is directed onto the protective element, with the result that fluid which is fed in via the fluid inlet 20 of the reaction chamber 2 first of all flows into the upper region (i.e., into the region above the horizonal plate of the sample holder 7) and then into the lower region (i.e., into the region below the horizontal plate of the sample holder 7); wherein the further lid delimits the upper region (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses a fluid outlet 30 with a discharge valve 31 which can be adjusted between an open position for discharging a fluid from the reaction chamber 2 and a closed position for stopping the discharge of the fluid from the reaction chamber 2 (see paragraph [0051]-[0053]); and a control device (not illustrated; see paragraph [0057]-[0060]) configured to control the fluid inlet 20 and the fluid outlet 30.
Regarding claim 29, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses that the control device is configured to control the feed valve 21 of the fluid inlet 20 in such a way that, after the change of the discharge valve 31 into the closed position, the reaction chamber 2 is pressurized by means of the fluid which is fed in via the fluid inlet 20 (i.e., the control device is configured to control the feed valve 21 such that the feed valve 21 remains or pauses in the open position after the switch of the discharge valve 31 into the closed position, such that the reaction chamber 2 is pressurized by means of the fluid fed via the feed valve 21; see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 30, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses that the control device is configured to transfer the discharge valve 31 into its open position, in order to flush the reaction chamber 2 by means of the fluid which is fed in via the fluid inlet 30 and is subsequently discharged via the discharge valve 31 (i.e., with the feed valve 21 and the discharge valve 31 being set to the open position by the control device, the reaction chamber 2 is flushed by a fluid flowing into the reaction chamber 2 via the feed valve 21 and flowing out of the reaction chamber 2 via the discharge valve 31; see FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 31, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses an oxygen sensor 33 for detecting an oxygen content in the reaction chamber 2, the control device being configured to control the fluid inlet 20 and the discharge valve 31 on the basis of the oxygen content which is detected by the oxygen sensor 33; wherein the control device is configured to control the fluid inlet 20 and the discharge valve 31 in such a way that the reaction chamber 2 is flushed via the feed valve 21 and the discharge valve 31 being situated in the open position, and at least the discharge valve 31 changes from the open position into the closed position as soon as a predefined oxygen content is undershot (see FIG. 3-4; paragraph [0057]-[0058], [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 33, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1; paragraph [0049]) further discloses that the check valve 23 is configured to stop the feed of the fluid into the reaction chamber 2 as soon as a defined pressure is reached in the reaction chamber 2.
Regarding claim 34, Lautenschläger ‘828 further discloses that the lid 4 and the lower part 3 are produced at least partially from steel (i.e., “The pressure vessel 1 is preferably composed of a high-pressure-resistant material … preferably steel, particularly preferably a corrosion-resistant high-grade steel alloy,” see paragraph [0025]).
Claims 16-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lautenschläger ‘828 (US 2020/0038828 A1) in view of Lautenschläger ‘608 (US 2011/0226608 A1) and Kurdziel et al. (US 2020/0063918 A1), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Lautenschläger ‘835 (US 5,725,835 B2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lautenschläger ‘828, Lautenschläger ‘608, and Kurdziel et al. fails to disclose or teach, furthermore, a line being provided downstream of the check valve (i.e., a line extending through the insulation lining of the lid) via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber.
Lautenschläger ‘835 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 1-2) comprising:
a lower part (i.e., a housing underpart 12) and a lid 13, which can be locked to one another (i.e., via screws 11a or oppositely arranged locking ring halves 11b), in order, in the state in which they are locked to one another, to surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiation and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples (i.e., a specimen material 31) which are received in the reaction chamber;
a fluid inlet (i.e., via a channel 9c) for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber;
a further lid (i.e., a lining lid plate 17b); and
specifically, a line (i.e., a sleeve 28 in a through opening of the lid 13 and the lining lid plate 17b; see column 5, lines 35-39) via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, furthermore, provide a line downstream of the check valve via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the line (i.e., a sleeve in the through opening of the insulation lining of the lid) would add further corrosion resistance against acids that may develop during treatment of the samples in the reaction chamber, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘835 (see column 9, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 17, in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828, the check valve would be supported on the line (i.e., supported on the sleeve in the through opening of the insulation lining of the lid).
Regarding claim 18, Kurdziel et al. (see FIG. 1-2; paragraph [0018]) further discloses that the check valve 240 can be configured such that its housing 301 is recessed relative to an interior wall 216 of the lid 104. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the line (sleeve) to extend at least partially in the through opening of the lid (when the check valve is recessed relative to the inner wall of the lid) in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828.
Regarding claim 19, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line (i.e., the sleeve 28; see FIG. 2) extends to the reaction chamber 2.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lautenschläger ‘828, Lautenschläger ‘608, and Kurdziel et al. fails to disclose or teach, furthermore, a line provided downstream of the check valve (i.e., a line in a through opening of the insulation lining of the lid) via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber, wherein the line extends in the further lid and/or is provided at least partially in the through opening of the further lid, and the line preferably does not extend into the lid.
Lautenschläger ‘835 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 1-2) comprising:
a lower part (i.e., a housing underpart 12) and a lid 13, which can be locked to one another (i.e., via screws 11a or locking ring halves 11b), in order, in the state in which they are locked to one another, to surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiation and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples (i.e., a specimen material 31) which are received in the reaction chamber;
a fluid inlet (i.e., via a channel 9c) for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber;
a further lid (i.e., a lining lid plate 17b); and
specifically, a line (i.e., a sleeve 28 in a through opening of the lid 13 and the lining lid plate 17b; see column 5, lines 35-39) via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, furthermore, provide a line downstream of the check valve via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber, wherein the line extends in the further lid and/or is provided at least partially in the through opening of the further lid, and the line preferably does not extend into the lid, in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the line (i.e., a sleeve inserted in the through opening of the insulation lining of the lid) would add further corrosion resistance against acids which may develop during the treatment of the samples in the reaction chamber, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘835 (see column 9, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 21, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line 28 has a flange region (i.e., inner flange 28a; see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line 28 comprises the flange region 28a provided and supported in a step of the further lid 17b (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the flange region 28a being provided at one end of the line 28 (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line 28 is at least partially produced from plastic, such as PTFE (see column 5, lines 35-39; column 9, lines 37-42).
B. Claim rejections based on a second embodiment of the check valve, in which the seal seat is provided at least partially outside the lid.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 26-27, 29-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lautenschläger ‘828 (US 2020/0038828 A1) in view of Lautenschläger ‘608 (US 2011/0226608 A1) and Dulger (DE 3723799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lautenschläger ‘828 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0045], and [0049]) comprising:
a lower part (i.e., a pot-shaped lower part 3) and a lid (i.e., a cover part 4) which can be closed together and which, in the closed state, surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiating and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples P received in the reaction chamber; and
a fluid inlet 20 with a check valve 23 for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber.
Lautenschläger ‘828 fails to disclose that the lower part 3 and the lid 4 can be further locked to one another, in order, in the state in which they are locked to another, to surround the reaction chamber 2 on all sides as said pressure space.
Lautenschläger ‘608 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 10; paragraphs [0058], [0114]) comprising: a lower part 5 and a lid 6 which can be closed together to surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides; and a fluid inlet FE with a check valve (i.e., a non-return valve 203) for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber. Specifically, Lautenschläger ‘608 discloses that the lower part 5 and the lid 6 can be locked to one another, in order, in the state in which they are locked to one another, to surround the reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiating and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples P received in the reaction chamber (as shown in FIG. 1, 5, and 9, the lower part 5 and the lid part 6 of the pressure vessel are provided with flange regions 50,60, and the lower part 5 and the lid part 6 are pressed together by clamp halves 109,110 arranged about the flange regions 50,60 such that the pressure vessel 1 surrounds and forms a securely locked pressure-resistant reaction chamber 2; see paragraphs [0059], [0086]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lower part and the lid such that they can be locked to one another in the pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the lower part and the lid could then be securely closed and locked when initiating and/or promoting the chemical and/or physical pressure reactions in the reaction chamber, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘608.
Lautenschläger ‘828 (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the check valve 23 is connected to a feed line 22 and located outside of the lid 4. Lautenschläger ‘828 fails to disclose that the check valve 23 extends at least partially in the lid 4.
Dulger discloses a reactor 1 (see FIG. 1-2; translation) comprising: a vessel defined by walls 2,3 which are connected to define a reaction chamber (i.e., an interior 4); and fluid inlets for feeding fluids (i.e., supplied by feed lines 9, 10, 11) into the reaction chamber. Specifically, Dulger discloses that the fluid inlets are provided with check valves 17,19, wherein each check valve extends at least partially inside the wall 2 of the vessel.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shift the location of the check valve such that the check valve extended at least partially in the lid in the pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the positioning of the check valve at least partially within a wall of the vessel would have been considered a suitable alternative location for coupling the check valve to the fluid inlet, as taught by Dulger, and the rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device was held to be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04, VI, C.
Regarding claim 2, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0045], [0049]) further discloses that the fluid inlet 20 has a feed valve 21 upstream of the check valve 23, wherein the feed valve 21 can be adjusted between an open position for feeding the fluid into the reaction chamber 2 and a closed position for stopping the feed of the fluid.
Regarding claim 3, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1, paragraph [0048]) further discloses that the fluid inlet 20 has a fluid line (i.e., the feed line 22); wherein, “The check valve 23 is configured to stop the feed of the fluid via the fluid inlet 20 into the reaction chamber 2 as soon as a particular pressure has been reached in the reaction chamber 2. For this purpose, it is preferable if the check valve 23 is provided downstream of the feed valve 21 and in the feed line 22.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the fluid line to have a downstream end, at which the check valve is provided and fastened, and an upstream end, at which the feed valve is provided, in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828.
Regarding claim 4, Lautenschläger ‘828 further discloses that the lid 4 has a through opening (see FIG. 1). Dulger (see FIG. 1) also discloses that the wall 2 is provided with through openings (i.e., via which the fluids are supplied) in which the check valves 17,19 are respectively received and/or fastened, wherein each through opening has a step (i.e., at the transition to feed lines 18, 21) on which the check valve 17, 19 lies directly. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive and/or fasten the check valve within the through opening according to the claimed manner in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because it would have been considered a suitable manner of mounting the check valve in the wall of the vessel, as taught by Dulger.
Regarding claim 6, Lautenschläger ‘828 further shows the check valve 23 (see FIG. 1) as having a closing element (i.e., a ball) and a housing (i.e., a housing containing the ball and a spring), the housing having a seal seat with an opening (i.e., at the inlet to the check valve 23) which can be closed by way of the closing element. Dulger (see FIG. 1-2) also shows the check valve 17,19 as having a closing element (i.e., a ball) and a housing (i.e., a housing of inlet 16,20), the housing having a seal seat with an opening (i.e., at the inlet to the check valve 17,19) which can be closed by way of the closing element; wherein the housing 16,20 extends at least partially in the wall 2. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the claimed check valve to extend at least partially in the lid in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828.
Regarding claim 8, Dulger (see FIG. 1-2) further discloses that the seal seat of the check valve 17,19 is provided at least partially outside the wall 2 of the vessel.
Regarding claim 9, Dulger (see FIG. 1-2) further discloses that the housing 16,20 of the check valve 17,19 is fastened to the wall 2 of the vessel.
Regarding claim 10, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further shows the closing element (i.e., ball) of the check valve 23 as having a spherical configuration. Dulger (FIG. 1-2) also shows the closing element (i.e., ball) of the check valve 17, 19, 25 as having a spherical configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Lautenschläger ‘828 (see FIG. 1) further shows the check valve 23 as comprising an elastic element in the form of a spring, which elastic element is arranged in such a way that its restoring force stresses or presses the closing element in the direction of the seal seat (i.e., the spring urges or biases the ball towards the seal seat located at the upstream end of the check valve 23). Dulger (see FIG. 1-2) also shows the check valve 17,19 as comprising an elastic element in the form of a spring, which elastic element is arranged in such a way that its restoring force stresses or presses the closing element in the direction of the seal seat.
Regarding claim 12, Lautenschläger ‘828 further shows the pressure vessel 1 as having a further lid (i.e., an inner lining of the lid 4; see FIG. 1) downstream of the check valve 23; wherein the lid 4 and the further lid have a through opening (shown) via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2. Lautenschläger ‘828, however, fails to disclose that the further lid is produced at least partially from plastic.
Lautenschläger ‘608 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0057], [0062]) discloses that the pressure vessel 1 comprises a further lid (i.e., an insulation lining 3,31) provided downstream of the check valve 203 (FIG. 10); wherein the lid 6 and the further lid 3,31 have a through opening via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2; and wherein, specifically, the further lid 3,31 is produced at least partially from plastic (i.e., plastic, PTFE; see paragraph [0022], [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the inner lid at least partially from plastic in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the plastic would serve as an insulator of the pressure vessel, and the plastic would also serve as corrosion protection for an inner wall of the pressure vessel and as protection of the inner wall with respect to chemical contamination by the samples, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘608 (see paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Lautenschläger ‘828 further shows the pressure vessel 1 as having a shell provided in the lower part and at least partially delimiting the reaction chamber 2, and a further lid having a flange region provided between the shell and the lid 4 (i.e., the lower portion 3 and the lid 4 each have an inner lining; see FIG. 1). Lautenschläger ‘828, however, fails to disclose the shell is produced at least partially from plastic.
Lautenschläger ‘608 (see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0057], [0062]) discloses that the pressure vessel 1 further comprises a shell (i.e., an insulation lining 3,30 comprising a vessel insert 9) provided in the lower part 5 and at least partially delimits the reaction chamber 2; and a further lid (i.e., insulation lining 3,31) having a flange region being provided between the shell 3,30,9 and the lid 6; wherein, specifically, the shell 3,30,9 is produced at least partially from plastic (i.e., plastic, PTFE; see paragraph [0022], [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the shell at least partially from plastic in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the plastic would serve as an insulator of the pressure vessel, and the plastic would also serve as corrosion protection for an inner wall of the pressure vessel and as protection of the inner wall with respect to chemical contamination by the samples, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘608 (see paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 26, Lautenschläger ‘828 further discloses a protective element which extends in the reaction chamber 2 at least partially between an upper region and a lower region of the reaction chamber, in order to cover the lower region at least partially (i.e., a protective element defined by an upper horizontal plate of a sample holder 7, see FIG. 2); the fluid inlet 20 being arranged in such a way that fluid is directed onto the protective element, with the result that fluid which is fed in via the fluid inlet 20 of the reaction chamber 2 first of all flows into the upper region (i.e., into the region above the horizonal plate of the sample holder 7) and then into the lower region (i.e., into the region below the horizontal plate of the sample holder 7); wherein the further lid delimits the upper region (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses a fluid outlet 30 with a discharge valve 31 which can be adjusted between an open position for discharging a fluid from the reaction chamber 2 and a closed position for stopping the discharge of the fluid from the reaction chamber 2 (see paragraph [0051]-[0053]); and a control device (not illustrated; see paragraph [0057]-[0060]) configured to control the fluid inlet 20 and the fluid outlet 30.
Regarding claim 29, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses that the control device is configured to control the feed valve 21 of the fluid inlet 20 in such a way that, after the change of the discharge valve 31 into the closed position, the reaction chamber 2 is pressurized by means of the fluid which is fed in via the fluid inlet 20 (i.e., the control device is configured to control the feed valve 21 such that the feed valve 21 remains or pauses in the open position after the switch of the discharge valve 31 into the closed position, such that the reaction chamber 2 is pressurized by means of the fluid fed via the feed valve 21; see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 30, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses that the control device is configured to transfer the discharge valve 31 into its open position, in order to flush the reaction chamber 2 by means of the fluid which is fed in via the fluid inlet 30 and is subsequently discharged via the discharge valve 31 (i.e., with the feed valve 21 and the discharge valve 31 being set to the open position by the control device, the reaction chamber 2 is flushed by a fluid flowing into the reaction chamber 2 via the feed valve 21 and flowing out of the reaction chamber 2 via the discharge valve 31; see FIG. 3 and paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 31, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1) further discloses an oxygen sensor 33 for detecting an oxygen content in the reaction chamber 2, the control device being configured to control the fluid inlet 20 and the discharge valve 31 on the basis of the oxygen content which is detected by the oxygen sensor 33; wherein the control device is configured to control the fluid inlet 20 and the discharge valve 31 in such a way that the reaction chamber 2 is flushed via the feed valve 21 and the discharge valve 31 being situated in the open position, and at least the discharge valve 31 changes from the open position into the closed position as soon as a predefined oxygen content is undershot (see FIG. 3-4; paragraph [0057]-[0058], [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 33, Lautenschläger ‘828 (FIG. 1; paragraph [0049]) further discloses that the check valve 23 is configured to stop the feed of the fluid into the reaction chamber 2 as soon as a defined pressure is reached in the reaction chamber 2.
Regarding claim 34, Lautenschläger ‘828 further discloses that the lid 4 and the lower part 3 are produced at least partially from steel (i.e., preferably steel, particularly preferably a corrosion-resistant high-grade steel alloy, see paragraph [0025]).
Claims 16-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lautenschläger ‘828 (US 2020/0038828 A1) in view of Lautenschläger ‘608 (US 2011/0226608 A1) and Dulger (DE 3723799 A1), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Lautenschläger ‘835 (US 5,725,835 B2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lautenschläger ‘828, Lautenschläger ‘608, and Dulger fails to disclose or teach, furthermore, a line being provided downstream of the check valve (i.e., a line extending through the insulation lining of the lid) via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber.
Lautenschläger ‘835 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 1-2) comprising:
a lower part (i.e., a housing underpart 12) and a lid 13, which can be locked to one another (i.e., via screws 11a or oppositely arranged locking ring halves 11b), in order, in the state in which they are locked to one another, to surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiation and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples (i.e., a specimen material 31) which are received in the reaction chamber;
a fluid inlet (i.e., via a channel 9c) for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber;
a further lid (i.e., a lining lid plate 17b); and
specifically, a line (i.e., a sleeve 28 in a through opening of the lid 13 and the lining lid plate 17b; see column 5, lines 35-39) via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, furthermore, provide a line downstream of the check valve via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the line (i.e., a sleeve in the through opening of the insulation lining of the lid) would add further corrosion resistance to acids that may develop during treatment of the samples in the reaction chamber, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘835 (see column 9, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 17, in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828, the check valve would be supported on the line (i.e., supported on the sleeve in the through opening of the insulation lining of the lid).
Regarding claim 18, the same comments of Lautenschläger ‘835 apply. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the line (sleeve) to extend at least partially in the through opening of the lid in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828.
Regarding claim 19, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line (i.e., the sleeve 28; see FIG. 2) extends to the reaction chamber 2.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lautenschläger ‘828, Lautenschläger ‘608, and Dulger fails to disclose or teach, furthermore, a line provided downstream of the check valve (i.e., a line in a through opening of the insulation lining of the lid) via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber, wherein the line extends in the further lid and/or is provided at least partially in the through opening of the further lid.
Lautenschläger ‘835 discloses a pressure vessel 1 (see FIG. 1-2) comprising:
a lower part (i.e., a housing underpart 12) and a lid 13, which can be locked to one another (i.e., via screws 11a or locking ring halves 11b), in order, in the state in which they are locked to one another, to surround a reaction chamber 2 on all sides as a pressure space for initiation and/or promoting chemical and/or physical pressure reactions of samples (i.e., a specimen material 31) which are received in the reaction chamber;
a fluid inlet (i.e., via a channel 9c) for feeding a fluid into the reaction chamber;
a further lid (i.e., a lining lid plate 17b); and
specifically, a line (i.e., a sleeve 28 in a through opening of the lid 13 and the lining lid plate 17b; see column 5, lines 35-39) via which the fluid can be fed into the reaction chamber 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, furthermore, provide a line downstream of the check valve via which the fluid which flows out of the check valve can be fed into the reaction chamber, wherein the line extends in the further lid and/or is provided at least partially in the through opening of the further lid, in the modified pressure vessel of Lautenschläger ‘828 because the line (i.e., a sleeve inserted in the through opening of the insulation lining of the lid) would add further corrosion resistance against acids which may develop during the treatment of the samples in the reaction chamber, as taught by Lautenschläger ‘835 (see column 9, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 21, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line 28 has a flange region (i.e., inner flange 28a; see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line 28 comprises the flange region 28a provided and supported in a step of the further lid 17b (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the flange region 28a being provided at one end of the line 28 (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Lautenschläger ‘835 further discloses that the line 28 is at least partially produced from plastic, such as PTFE (see column 5, lines 35-39; column 9, lines 37-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Träff et al. (EP 0 602 363 A1) is cited to further illustrate the state of the art.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774