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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 19 recites:
A system for managing moisture content of a carbonation medium, the system comprising:
a contactor unit including a plurality of carbonation vessels with carbonation medium disposed therein;
a first sensor in the contactor unit, the first sensor configured to measure an environmental condition at a location in the contactor unit;
a second sensor outside the contactor unit, the second sensor configured to measure an environmental condition at a location outside the contactor unit, the measured environmental conditions including relative humidity;
a communication device configured to collect weather forecast data and current weather information from a weather service provider; and
a processor configured to receive data from the first sensor, the second sensor, and the communication device, the processor further configured to develop model predictions for the carbonation extent and moisture content of the carbonation medium in a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels and communicate instructions with components of the contactor unit based on the model predictions.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 19 recites the limitations of “the processor further configured to develop model predictions for the carbonation extent and moisture content of the carbonation medium in a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels”. But for “the processor further configured to”, The recited “develop …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, provide model predictions for the carbonation extent and moisture content of the carbonation medium can be done in the mind or with pen and paper to calculate water loss using the humidity measurements at air intake and air exit and estimate the moisture content based on the water loss, and to use the measured Co2 concentration of the carbonation medium to estimate the carbonation extent. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “managing moisture content of a carbonation medium” and “a contactor unit including a plurality of carbonation vessels with carbonation medium disposed therein; a first sensor in the contactor unit, the first sensor configured to measure an environmental condition at a location in the contactor unit; a second sensor outside the contactor unit, the second sensor configured to measure an environmental condition at a location outside the contactor unit, the measured environmental conditions including relative humidity; a communication device configured to collect weather forecast data and current weather information from a weather service provider” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 2) “receive data from the first sensor, the second sensor, and the communication device”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recited 3) “processor” is additional elements which are to implement the system. But the “processor” is recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “processor”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited 4) “communicate instructions with components of the contactor unit based on the model predictions” is additional limitation that is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than causing to act), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “managing moisture content of a carbonation medium” and “a contactor unit including a plurality of carbonation vessels with carbonation medium disposed therein; a first sensor in the contactor unit, the first sensor configured to measure an environmental condition at a location in the contactor unit; a second sensor outside the contactor unit, the second sensor configured to measure an environmental condition at a location outside the contactor unit, the measured environmental conditions including relative humidity; a communication device configured to collect weather forecast data and current weather information from a weather service provider”;
2) “receive data from the first sensor, the second sensor, and the communication device”;
3) “processor”;
4) “communicate instructions with components of the contactor unit based on the model predictions”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Regarding 2), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 3) “processor” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 4) “communicate instructions with components of the contactor unit based on the model predictions” is additional limitation that is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception or mere field of use and technological environment and does not add an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and recites additional elements of “the components of the contactor unit include at least one of a water delivery device or a distributor” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 depends on claim 20, and recites additional elements of “the water delivery device includes a sprayer configured to spray water into the carbonation vessel” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 depends on claim 19, and recites additional elements of “a third sensor incorporated into a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 depends on claim 19, and recites additional elements of “the carbonation vessels include trays” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 23 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites “the current weather data” that lacks antecedent basis. For examination purpose, “the current weather data” is construed as “the environmental condition”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 17-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousselet US 20240024815 A1 in view of ITO WO 2022045021 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rousselet teaches a method, comprising:
monitoring, via a first sensor, an environmental condition in a contactor unit (Fig. 27 [0149] air sensors 1432, fluid sensors 1436 and carbon capture solution sensors 1438), the contactor unit including a plurality of carbonation vessels including carbonation medium (Figs. 1-3 &13 [0090] [0092] – [0095] carbonation mediums disposed in troughs 392s);
PNG
media_image1.png
800
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
monitoring, via a second sensor, an environmental condition at a location outside of the contactor unit (Fig. 27 [0149] air sensor 1430 measuring air relative humidity entering the inlet of the contactor);
predicting, based on the environmental condition in the contactor unit and the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit, each of a moisture content of the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels, and a carbonation extent of the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels for carbonation ([0149] [0150] the capture solution saturation is estimated by the entering and leaving CO2 concentrations i.e. “the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit” and by measuring certain parameters of the caron capture solution i.e. “the environmental condition in the contactor unit” and is compared to a preset CO2 saturation threshold i.e. “a carbonation extent of the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels”; [0156] the water content is estimated indirectly using the humidity between air entering an air inlet and air exiting an air outlet i.e. “the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit” and detection of a change in concentration of one or more parameters of the carbon capture solution i.e. “the environmental condition in the contactor unit”); and
executing an action on the plurality of carbonation vessels based on the predicted moisture content and predicted carbonation extent ([0150] [0155] controller take actions when over saturation and water loss reaching threshold).
Rousselet does not explicitly further teach:
predicting, based on the environmental condition in the contactor unit and the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit, a local humidity in a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels; and
predicting for a forecasting period.
ITO explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
predicting, based on the environmental condition in the contactor unit and the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit, a local humidity in a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels and predicting for a forecasting period (Fig. 4 [0043] – [0047] [0088] – [0091], the measured current humidity inside the greenhouse, the forecast outside humidity at target time i.e. “for a carbonation forecasting period” and other forecast information and internal measurements are input to prediction model to predict the inside humidity Hin at the target time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet to incorporate the teachings of ITO, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein predicting, based on the environmental condition in the contactor unit and the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit, a local humidity in a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels and predicting for a forecasting period. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the inside environment conditions, as ITO teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 2, ITO further teaches receiving, at a processor, current weather data from a weather service provider, wherein predicting the moisture content and carbonation extent of the carbonation medium is based on the current weather data ([0053] the prediction model based on meteorological predicted information for the current time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet to incorporate the teachings of ITO, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein receiving, at a processor, current weather data from a weather service provider, wherein predicting the moisture content and carbonation extent of the carbonation medium is based on the current weather data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the inside environment conditions, as ITO teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 3, ITO further teaches receiving, at the processor, weather forecast data from a forecast provider, wherein predicting the moisture content and carbonation extent of the carbonation medium is based on the weather forecast data ([0088] [0091] the prediction based on the meteorological forecast at target time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet to incorporate the teachings of ITO, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein receiving, at the processor, weather forecast data from a forecast provider, wherein predicting the moisture content and carbonation extent of the carbonation medium is based on the weather forecast data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the inside environment conditions, as ITO teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 4, Rousselet further teaches the action includes at least one of spraying water into the carbonation vessel, humidifying the carbonation vessel, taking a measurement of the carbonation vessel, delivering water to the carbonation vessel via capillary action and/or capillary mats, stirring the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel, dumping the carbonation medium from the carbonation vessel ([0150] drain the saturated carbon capture solution), or filling the carbonation vessel with carbonation medium.
Regarding claim 6, ITO further teaches the weather service provider and the forecast provider are the same provider ([0052] server 400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet to incorporate the teachings of ITO, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein the weather service provider and the forecast provider are the same provider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the inside environment conditions, as ITO teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 7, Rousselet further teaches the location outside of the contactor unit is within about 50 m of an outside border of the contactor unit (Fig. 27 [0149] the air sensors at inlet and outlet).
Regarding claim 9, ITO further teaches updating the prediction of the water content and the carbonation extent of the carbonation medium at an update interval ([0053] prescribed period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet to incorporate the teachings of ITO, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein updating the prediction of the water content and the carbonation extent of the carbonation medium at an update interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the inside environment conditions, as ITO teaches in [0094].
Regarding claim 12, Rousselet further teaches measuring, via the first sensor, at least one of carbonation vessel mass, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) data from carbonation medium, temperature in the contactor unit, CO2 concentration in the contactor unit ([0149] temperature and carbon dioxide concentration by liquid sensors 1438), barometric pressure in the contactor unit, wind speed in the contactor unit, or wind direction in the contactor unit.
Regarding claim 13, Rousselet further teaches measuring, via the second sensor, at least one of temperature, relative humidity, or CO2 concentration at the location outside the contactor unit ([0149] air sensor 1430 measuring air relative humidity entering the inlet of the contactor).
Regarding claim 17, Rousselet further teaches the carbonation vessels include trays (Figs. 1-3 &13 [0090] [0092] – [0095] carbonation mediums disposed in troughs 392s i.e. “trays”).
Regarding claim 18, Rousselet further teaches the action includes spraying water into the carbonation vessel, and an amount of water sprayed is determined by at least one of the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit, a forecasted environmental condition, a measured water content in the carbonation vessel, a forecasted water content in the carbonation vessel, a measured carbonation extent in the carbonation vessel, or a forecasted carbonation extent in the carbonation vessel ([0155] water makeup is based on the humidity between air entering an air inlet and exiting an air outlet, [0116] - [0118] the collected water is used as water makeup to be sprayed onto the capture medium).
Regarding claim 19, it is directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. Since Rousselet and ITO teach the claimed method, they teach the system for implementing the method steps.
In addition, Rousselet further teaches the measured environmental conditions including relative humidity (Fig. 27 [0149] air sensor 1430 measuring air relative humidity entering the inlet of the contactor), a communication device to collect data ([0090] communication device 360), and a processor to implementing the method steps (Fig. 27 [0149] controller 1426).
Regarding claim 20, Rousselet further teaches the components of the contactor unit include at least one of a water delivery device or a distributor (Fig. 18 [0118] system 704 recirculate water instead of carbon capture solution through the liquid distribution system 706).
Regarding claim 21, Rousselet further teaches the water delivery device includes a sprayer configured to spray water into the carbonation vessel ([0093] spray nozzles).
Regarding claim 22, Rousselet further teaches a third sensor incorporated into a carbonation vessel from the plurality of carbonation vessels ([0149] more liquid sensors 1438).
Regarding claim 23, Rousselet further teaches the carbonation vessels include trays (Figs. 1-3 &13 [0090] [0092] – [0095] carbonation mediums disposed in troughs 392s i.e. “trays”).
Regarding claim 24, it is directed to non-transitory, processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions to cause executions of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since Rousselet and ITO teach the claimed method, they teach the instructions for implementing the method steps. In addition, Rousselet further teaches a processor to implementing the method steps (Fig. 27 [0149] controller 1426).
Regarding claim 25, Rousselet further teaches the environmental condition in the contactor unit includes at least one of relative humidity, temperature, CO2 concentration ([0149] liquid sensors measure temperature, CO2 concentration), solar irradiance, barometric pressure, wind speed, gust speed, or wind direction.
Regarding claim 26, Rousselet further teaches the environmental condition at the location outside of the contactor unit includes at least one of relative humidity (Fig. 27 [0149] air sensor 1430 measuring air relative humidity entering the inlet of the contactor), temperature, CO₂ concentration, solar irradiance, barometric pressure, wind speed, gust speed, or wind direction.
Regarding claims 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 34, they are directed to non-transitory, processor-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions to cause executions of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claims 2, 3, 9, 4, 6 and 17, respectively. Since Rousselet and ITO teach the claimed method, they teach the instructions for implementing the method steps (Rousselet: Fig. 27 [0149] controller 1426, a processor to implementing the method steps).
Regarding claim 33, Rousselet further teaches the location outside of the contactor unit is within about 1 m of an outside border of the contactor unit (Fig. 27 [0149] the air sensors at inlet and outlet).
Claims 5, 8, 10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousselet in view of ITO as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 17-29 and 31-34 above, further in view of ZHANG CN 114859998 A.
Regarding claim 5, neither Rousselet nor ITO explicitly further teaches the forecasting period is between about 1 hour and about 48 hours.
ZHANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the forecasting period is between about 1 hour and about 48 hours (page 4 paragraph 5 from the bottom, after one hour).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet and ITO to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein the forecasting period is between about 1 hour and about 48 hours. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to control the inside environment conditions, as ZHANG teaches in Abstract.
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG further teaches the weather forecast data is for a period of about 1 hour to about 96 hours (page 4 paragraph 5 from the bottom, after one hour).
Regarding claims 10 and 30, ZHANG further teaches the update interval is between about 5 minutes and about 12 hours (page 4 paragraph 5 from the bottom, after one hour).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousselet in view of ITO as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 17-29 and 31-34 above, further in view of READICK US 20230177330 A1 and LIN CN 110347127 A.
Regarding claim 11, ITO further teaches the environmental condition includes at least one of temperature, relative humidity, solar irradiance, and precipitation ([0036] temperature, relative humidity, solar irradiance, rainfall).
Neither Rousselet nor ITO explicitly further teaches the environmental condition includes at least one of wind speed, wind direction, gust speed, solar radiation, barometric pressure, and CO2 concentration.
READICK explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the environmental condition includes at least one of wind speed, wind direction, and gust speed ([0006] cultivar condition from weather information service including wind speed, wind direction, gust speed, an atmospheric pressure, a CO2 quantity); and
LIN explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the environmental condition includes at least one of solar radiation, barometric pressure, and CO2 concentration (page 7 paragraph 8 from the bottom, solar radiation, barometric pressure, carbon dioxide concentration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet and ITO to incorporate the teachings of ITO, READICK and LIN, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein the forecasting period is between about 1 hour and about 48 hours. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the inside environment conditions, as ITO teaches in [0094].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousselet in view of ITO as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 17-29 and 31-34 above, further in view of Aldayini US 20230330590 A1.
Regarding claim 14, neither Rousselet nor ITO explicitly further generating a schedule for application of water to the plurality of carbonation vessels based on the predicting.
Aldayini explicitly teaches in an analogous art that generating a schedule for application of water to the plurality of carbonation vessels based on the predicting ([0034] makeup schedule is established to satisfy water makeup rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rousselet and ITO to incorporate the teachings of Aldayini, because they all directed to environment condition control, to make the method wherein that generating a schedule for application of water to the plurality of carbonation vessels based on the predicting. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to makeup the water, as Aldayini teaches in [0034].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 depends on claim 14. Rousselet, ITO and Aldayini together teach the claim limitations of claim 14. Rousselet further teaches fixed distributor in the contactor unit. However, Rousselet, ITO and Aldayini do not teach or suggest individually or in combination that the distributor in the contactor unit is movable, therefore they do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the schedule includes a movement plan for a distributor in the contactor unit.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 depends on claim 1. Rousselet and ITO together teach the claim limitations of claim 1.
Rousselet further teaches predicting moisture content of the carbonation vessel and predicting carbonation extent of the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel ([0156] the water content is estimated indirectly using the humidity between air entering an air inlet and air exiting an air outlet i.e. predicting “moisture content of the carbonation vessel”; [0149] [0150] the capture solution saturation is estimated by the entering and leaving CO2 concentrations i.e. predicting “carbonation extent of the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel”).
MATSUMOTO JP 2002273374 A teaches measuring a mass of the carbonation vessel (page 5 paragraph 7 from the bottom, the weight of the alkali fly ash).
However, Rousselet, ITO and MATSUMOTO do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
providing the measured mass of the carbonation vessel, the predicted moisture content of the carbonation vessel, and the predicted carbonation extent of the carbonation medium in the carbonation vessel to a modeler; and either:
(1) transporting the carbonation vessel to a caddy for collection;
(2) translating a spray mass returned by the modeler into a spray speed and requesting the carbonation vessel be sprayed at the spray speed; or
(3) taking no action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KELEMEN WO 2020263910 A1 teaches carbonation rate is a function of moisture content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 March 13, 2026