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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 and 29-37 in the reply filed August 27th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-28 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 27th, 2025.
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 4, 11-12, and 36 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the sorbent elements are discrete and loosely packed” in lines 1-2 and “the hydrophobic elements are discrete and loosely packed” in lines 2-3. The term “loosely packed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loosely packed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without knowing the density of the sorbent elements and hydrophobic elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to discern what qualifies as “loosely packed.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the hydrophobic layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is dependent from claim 11 and is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 36 recites the limitation “wherein the sorbent elements are discrete and loosely packed” in lines 1-2 and “the hydrophobic elements are discrete and loosely packed” in lines 2-3. The term “loosely packed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loosely packed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without knowing the density of the sorbent elements and hydrophobic elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to discern what qualifies as “loosely packed.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Patent Application No. WO 96/15027 to McKenna (hereinafter referred to as McKenna), as evidenced by Saeidi, M. et al. CO2 Capture Exploration on Potassium Hydroxide Employing Response Surface Methodology, Isotherm and Kinetic Models, Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng., Vol. 39 (2020), pp. 255-267 (hereinafter referred to as Saeidi).
Regarding claim 1, McKenna teaches a sorbent article comprising: a plurality of sorbent elements structured to adsorb CO2 (Pg. 3, lines 28-29 “The present invention is an improved gas adsorbent rebreather canister designed to provide efficient adsorption of CO2”); and a plurality of hydrophobic elements mixed with the plurality of sorbent elements and structured to exert hydrophobic force to expel liquid water from the sorbent article (Pg. 3, lines 30-36 “The present invention also provides an air permeable, hydrophobic (liquid-water repellent), water-vapor permeable sheet … The water repellent nature of the sheet prevents water, in the event the canister becomes flooded with water, from reaching and contacting the adsorbent material inside the sheet.”). McKenna does not explicitly teach wherein the sorbent elements are structured to both adsorb and desorb CO2.
However, McKenna teaches that a plurality of adsorbents can be used for the capture of CO2 (Pg. 8, lines 35-37 and Pg. 9, line 1 “The particular adsorbent material or particle 39 used in the sheet of the invention depends on the particular gas being adsorbed. To adsorb CO2 gas, adsorbent material 39 may comprise calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide”). As evidenced by Saeidi, potassium hydroxide is capable of both adsorbing and desorbing CO2 (Abstract “In this research, KOH has been evaluated as a solid adsorbent for carbon dioxide capture.” ; Pg. 256 “The main impartial of current study was to explore the influence of modification parameters on the CO2 adsorption/desorption performance of the modified adsorbents” ; Pg. 256 “Furthermore, potassium hydroxide (KOH), is a solid adsorbent, can adsorb considerable amount of CO2 and can be simply regenerated.”), and McKenna therefore reads on the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising: a container in which the plurality of sorbent elements and the plurality of hydrophobic elements are maintained in an intermixed distribution (Fig. 1a, gas adsorbent canister device 20 ; Pg. 8, lines 1-4 “In one embodiment shown in Figure 8, sheet 30 is formed of an adsorbent filled expanded porous PTFE sheet having a microstructure of nodes 40 interconnected with fibrils 41 wherein adsorbent material 39 is present in the voids of the PTFE structures”).
Regarding claim 3, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 2 above, the container comprising a drain through which the liquid water is expelled from the sorbent article (Fig. 1a, outlet 26). Although McKenna does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid water is expelled from the sorbent article through said drain, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say that the drain as taught by McKenna is capable of expelling liquid water. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 4, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the sorbent elements are discrete and loosely packed within the container (Fig. 8, adsorbent material 39), and the hydrophobic elements are discrete and loosely packed within the container (Fig. 8, PTFE nodes 40).
Regarding claim 5, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the hydrophobic elements form a network of hydrophobic elements (Pg. 4, lines 21-22 “such as expanded porous polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) having a microstructure of nodes interconnected with fibrils”).
Regarding claim 6, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 5 above, wherein the network of hydrophobic elements defines a plurality of interstitial spaces within the network of hydrophobic elements (Fig. 8, PTFE nodes 40 interconnected with fibrils 41) and at least some of the sorbent elements are disposed within the interstitial spaces defined by the network of hydrophobic elements (Pg. 8, lines 3-4 “wherein adsorbent material 39 is present in the voids of the PTFE structure”).
Regarding claim 7, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 5 above, wherein the network of hydrophobic elements is entrained in a structure having a plurality of hydrophobic nodes and fibrils (Claim 9, “The canister of claim 1 wherein the sheet is comprised of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene having a microstructure of nodes interconnected with fibrils”).
Regarding claim 8, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 7 above, wherein the structure is at least partially contained within the container (Fig. 1b, sheet 30 is formed of an adsorbent filled expanded porous PTFE sheet) and is structured to facilitate restricting movement of the hydrophobic elements with respect to the sorbent elements to maintain the intermixed distribution of the plurality of sorbent elements and the plurality of hydrophobic elements (Pg. 9, lines 4-8 “Another preferred embodiment of the sheet 30 is shown in Figure 9, where the filled ePTFE sheet 30 is encapsulated between two hydrophobic gas-permeable membranes 42. These outer membranes 42 add extra protection to ensure that the adsorption material 40 is contained within the sheet 30”).
Regarding claim 9, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising at least one hydrophobic layer disposed adjacent to the sorbent elements and the hydrophobic elements (Fig. 9, hydrophobic gas-permeable membranes 42 surround adsorbent material 39 and PTFE fibrils/nodes 41 and 40).
Regarding claim 10, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 9 above, comprising two porous hydrophobic layers such that the sorbent elements and the hydrophobic elements are disposed between the two porous hydrophobic layers (Fig. 9, hydrophobic gas-permeable membranes 42 surround adsorbent material 39 and PTFE fibrils/nodes 41 and 40).
Regarding claim 11, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 9 above, wherein the hydrophobic layer has a first permeability with respect to water vapor that is greater than a second permeability with respect to liquid water (Pg. 3, lines 30-32 “The present invention also provides an air permeable, hydrophobic (liquid-water repellent), water-vapor permeable sheet having an adsorbent material inside” ; If the material is liquid-water repellent yet water-vapor permeable, then the permeability with respect to water vapor is greater than its permeability with respect to liquid water). McKenna does not explicitly teach that wherein the liquid water is formed as a result of condensation of the water vapor within the sorbent article. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say that the liquid water is capable of forming as a result of condensation of the water vapor within the sorbent article. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 12, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 11 above, wherein the second permeability is defined such that the hydrophobic layer is impermeable with respect to the liquid water under atmospheric pressure (Pg. 4, line 38 – Pg. 5, line 1 “Second, because the membrane is hydrophobic, liquid water is not able to penetrate the membrane”).
Regarding claim 13, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 9 above, wherein the hydrophobic elements are configured to exert sufficient hydrophobic force to expel the liquid water through the hydrophobic layer (Pg. 8, lines 30-32 “the hydrophobicity of the ePTFE offers this structural durability even while subjected to direct liquid water contact, without water ever mixing with the CO2 adsorbent.”).
Regarding claim 14, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the hydrophobic elements are configured to exert the hydrophobic force against liquid water located on a surface of the sorbent article to facilitate reducing an amount of liquid water entering the sorbent article (Pg. 8, lines 30-32 “the hydrophobicity of the ePTFE offers this structural durability even while subjected to direct liquid water contact, without water ever mixing with the CO2 adsorbent.”).
Regarding claim 15, McKenna teaches a sorbent article as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the hydrophobic elements are a first plurality of hydrophobic elements having a first hydrophobicity (Fig. 9, adsorbent 39 intermixed with PTFE nodes 40 and fibrils 41), the sorbent article further comprising a second plurality of hydrophobic elements of a material different from the first plurality of hydrophobic elements characterized by a second hydrophobicity that is different from the first hydrophobicity (Fig. 9, hydrophobic membranes 42 ; In this case the adsorbent mixed with the hydrophobic elements comprises a first element having a first hydrophobicity and the hydrophobic membranes that are not mixed with adsorbent comprises a second element having a second hydrophobicity).
Regarding claim 16, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 15 above, wherein the second plurality of hydrophobic elements are different in size or shape from the first plurality of hydrophobic elements (PTFE mixed with adsorbent will differ in shape compared to a pure PTFE membrane).
Regarding claim 17, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 15 above, wherein the second plurality of hydrophobic elements are disposed within the interstitial spaces defined by the network of hydrophobic elements (Pg. 9, lines 30-35 “Figures 12 through 15 illustrate a method for making the sheet 30 of Figure 11 having an internal screen 44, adsorbent material 40, and outer membranes 42. Figure 12 depicts the internal screen 44. Next, in Figure 13, internal screen 44 is attached to a membrane 42 by a lamination process. Subsequently, in Figure 14, adsorbent material 39 is added into the open cells of internal screen 44.”). With the use of a lamination process, the second plurality of hydrophobic elements (the outer membranes 42) would bond to the mixture of PTFE and adsorbent and would become connected through nodes and fibrils. With this lamination process, at least some of the PTFE membrane would be disposed within the interstitial spaces defined by the network of hydrophobic elements as required by claim 17.
Regarding claim 29, McKenna teaches a sorbent article for removing carbon dioxide gas (Pg. 1, lines 9-10 “The present invention relates to an adsorbent system for removing carbon dioxide from expelled air”), the sorbent article comprising: an enclosure supporting a distribution of sorbent elements intermixed with hydrophobic elements (Fig. 1a, gas adsorbent canister device 20 ; Pg. 8, lines 1-4 “In one embodiment shown in Figure 8, sheet 30 is formed of an adsorbent filled expanded porous PTFE sheet having a microstructure of nodes 40 interconnected with fibrils 41 wherein adsorbent material 39 is present in the voids of the PTFE structures”), the enclosure defining an exterior surface of the enclosure (Fig. 1a, wall 22) and an opposing interior surface facing the distribution (Pg. 6, lines 19-21 “In Figures 1a and 1b, an improved gas adsorbent canister device, indicated generally at 20, comprises wall 22 which defines a hollow canister body 23” ; Pg. 6, lines 24-26 “the inside hollow portion of the canister contains porous, liquid-water resistant, air permeable sheets 30 which contain an adsorbent material.” ; if the wall 22 defines a hollow body 23 then there will inherently be an opposing interior surface facing the enclosed adsorbent material), a first portion of the enclosure permitting passage of the carbon dioxide gas through the distribution (Fig. 1a, gas inlet 24), , wherein the hydrophobic elements define a first hydrophobicity of the hydrophobic elements (Fig. 1b, sheet 30 is formed of an adsorbent filled expanded porous PTFE sheet ; PTFE has a first hydrophobicity) and the sorbent elements define a second hydrophobicity of the sorbent elements (Pg. 8, lines 35-38 and Pg. 9, line 1 “The particular adsorbent material or particle 39 used in the sheet of the invention depends on the particular gas being adsorbed. To adsorb CO2 gas, adsorbent material 39 may comprise calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide and mixtures thereof or other Group IA and IIA metal hydroxides as well as polymer adsorption materials.” ; any of the listed adsorbent materials will read on a second hydrophobicity of the sorbent element), the second hydrophobicity being less than the first hydrophobicity (in the instance where the adsorbent material is a metal hydroxide, said metal hydroxide hydrophobicity will be significantly less than the first hydrophobicity of the PTFE), wherein the hydrophobic elements within the distribution are distributed to exert a hydrophobic force on the mass of water within the distribution when the mass of water transitions to a liquid water (Pg. 8, lines 30-32 “the hydrophobicity of the ePTFE offers this structural durability even while subjected to direct liquid water contact, without water ever mixing with the CO2 adsorbent.”). Although McKenna does not explicitly disclose certain limitations of claim 29, the sorbent article as taught by McKenna inherently possesses these characteristics or functions. Firstly, although the sorbent article as taught by McKenna is taught for use as an adsorbent system for removing CO2 from expelled air, it is capable of removing CO2 from an atmosphere. Secondly, as to the limitation of a second portion of the enclosure permitting passage of a mass of water between the distribution and the exterior surface of the enclosure (Fig. 1a, outlet 26), although McKenna does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid water is expelled from the sorbent article through said drain, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say that the drain as taught by McKenna is capable of expelling liquid water. See MPEP § 2112.01(I). McKenna additionally does not explicitly disclose wherein the sorbent elements are capable of desorbing the carbon dioxide gas via the exterior surface of the enclosure with the application of a temperature change to the distribution.
However, McKenna teaches that a plurality of adsorbents can be used for the capture of CO2 (Pg. 8, lines 35-37 and Pg. 9, line 1 “The particular adsorbent material or particle 39 used in the sheet of the invention depends on the particular gas being adsorbed. To adsorb CO2 gas, adsorbent material 39 may comprise calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide”). As evidenced by Saeidi, potassium hydroxide is capable of both adsorbing and desorbing CO2 (Abstract “In this research, KOH has been evaluated as a solid adsorbent for carbon dioxide capture.” ; Pg. 256 “The main impartial of current study was to explore the influence of modification parameters on the CO2 adsorption/desorption performance of the modified adsorbents” ; Pg. 256 “Furthermore, potassium hydroxide (KOH), is a solid adsorbent, can adsorb considerable amount of CO2 and can be simply regenerated.”). Saeidi also demonstrates that the optimal temperature for CO2 removal is 45⁰C (Pg. 262, “Fig. 9 displays that the optimal temperature for CO2 removal is 45⁰C.” ; see also Fig. 9), and the sorbent article as taught by McKenna is therefore capable of desorbing the carbon dioxide gas via the exterior surface of the enclosure with the application of a temperature change to the distribution, reading on the limitations of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above, wherein the hydrophobic elements define a structure having a plurality of hydrophobic filaments (Pg. 4, lines 21-22 “such as expanded porous polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) having a microstructure of nodes interconnected with fibrils”), the plurality of hydrophobic filaments forming a network defining a plurality of interstitial spaces between the plurality of hydrophobic filaments (Fig. 8, PTFE nodes 40 interconnected with fibrils 41).
Regarding claim 31, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 30 above, wherein the sorbent elements are disposed within the interstitial spaces (Pg. 8, lines 3-4 “wherein adsorbent material 39 is present in the voids of the PTFE structure”).
Regarding claim 32, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above. McKenna does not teach wherein the enclosure is formed by an exterior surface of the distribution. However, as can be seen in Fig. 5 of McKenna, inside of the canister sits liquid-water resistant, air permeable sheets 30 which contain an adsorbent material. In the case where such sheets are removed from the canister, the exterior surface (and in some embodiments, the hydrophobic membranes) become an exterior surface of the distribution. McKenna further teaches wherein the CO2 adsorbent filled ePTFE sheets do not require additional supporting material to maintain structural integrity (Pg. 8, lines 27-28 “The properties of CO2 adsorbent filled ePTFE sheet are such that no other supporting fabric or material is needed to maintain structural integrity.”), demonstrating the materials ability to remain structurally sound outside of the canister and therefore read on the limitations of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above. McKenna does not teach wherein the first portion of the enclosure is formed by an exterior surface of the distribution. However, as can be seen in Fig. 5 of McKenna, inside of the canister sits liquid-water resistant, air permeable sheets 30 which contain an adsorbent material. In the case where such sheets are partially removed from the canister, the exterior surface (and in some embodiments, the hydrophobic membranes) become an exterior surface of the distribution. McKenna further teaches wherein the CO2 adsorbent filled ePTFE sheets do not require additional supporting material to maintain structural integrity (Pg. 8, lines 27-28 “The properties of CO2 adsorbent filled ePTFE sheet are such that no other supporting fabric or material is needed to maintain structural integrity.”), demonstrating the materials ability to remain structurally sound outside of the canister and therefore read on the limitations of claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above. McKenna does not teach wherein the second portion of the enclosure is formed by an exterior surface of the distribution. However, as can be seen in Fig. 5 of McKenna, inside of the canister sits liquid-water resistant, air permeable sheets 30 which contain an adsorbent material. In the case where such sheets are partially removed from the canister, the exterior surface (and in some embodiments, the hydrophobic membranes) become an exterior surface of the distribution. McKenna further teaches wherein the CO2 adsorbent filled ePTFE sheets do not require additional supporting material to maintain structural integrity (Pg. 8, lines 27-28 “The properties of CO2 adsorbent filled ePTFE sheet are such that no other supporting fabric or material is needed to maintain structural integrity.”), demonstrating the materials ability to remain structurally sound outside of the canister and therefore read on the limitations of claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above, wherein the enclosure defines a drain through which the liquid water is expelled from the distribution (Fig. 1a, outlet 26). Although McKenna does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid water is expelled from the sorbent article through said drain, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say that the drain as taught by McKenna is capable of expelling liquid water. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 36, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above, wherein the sorbent elements are discrete and loosely packed within the container (Fig. 8, adsorbent material 39), and the hydrophobic elements are discrete and loosely packed within the container (Fig. 8, PTFE nodes 40).
Regarding claim 37, McKenna teaches the sorbent article as applied to claim 29 above, wherein the hydrophobic elements are composed of at least one of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or expanded polyethylene (ePE) (Pg. 8, lines 1-4 “In one embodiment shown in Figure 8, sheet 30 is formed of an adsorbent filled expanded porous PTFE sheet having a microstructure of nodes 40 interconnected with fibrils 41 wherein adsorbent material 39 is present in the voids of the PTFE structures”).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna, as evidenced by Saeidi as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, McKenna teaches the sorbent as applied to claim 1 above. McKenna does not disclose the contribution of the hydrophobic elements to the density of the sorbent article. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of sorbent elements and hydrophobic elements to adequately capture CO2 while preventing water from permeating through the material. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Owens (US 2016/0166972 A1) teaches an adsorbent bed that includes polymer filaments embedded with adsorbent particles.
Leung (US 2008/0264259 A1) teaches a filtration medium with a hydrophobic coating surrounding the filtration medium.
Wright (US 2021/0370230 A1) teaches a sorbent membrane for carbon dioxide capture that has a layer of hydrophobic material surrounding the sorbent membrane.
Chang (US 2012/0247330 A1) teaches an apparatus for the capture of CO2 comprising a polymer matrix embedded with adsorbent material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, MAGALI SLAWSKI can be reached at (571)270-3960. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773