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
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of claims 1-18 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 7, Line 19 reads “said nominal nitric acid output corresponding to said nominal ammonia output bring partially or entirely transferred from the ammonia plant to the nitric acid plant”, but should read: “said nominal nitric acid output corresponding to said nominal ammonia output being partially or entirely transferred from the ammonia plant to the nitric acid plant” (emphasis added in both). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 reads “said nominal nitric acid output corresponding to said nominal ammonia output bring partially or entirely transferred from the ammonia plant to the nitric acid plant” which should read “said nominal nitric acid output corresponding to said nominal ammonia output being partially or entirely transferred from the ammonia plant to the nitric acid plant” (emphasis added in both). Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. 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.
Claims 8-10 and 13 all similarly require a “nominal” output from an ammonia plant, a nitric acid plant, and/or an ammonium nitrate plant, however neither the claims nor the specification provide guidance as to what said nominal output is. The Specification defines the nominal output for nitric acid “said nominal nitric acid output corresponding to said nominal ammonia output bring partially or entirely transferred from the ammonia plant to the nitric acid plant for the production of nitric acid”, however the phrase partially or entirely renders it unclear. For example, if an ammonia plant produced 1 unit of NH3 per unit of time and a nitric acid plant produced 0.5 units of nitric acid per unit of time the nominal nitric acid output could be considered any value from 50% (entirely transferred) to 0% exclusive (partially transferred). Additionally, the ammonia output could be considered any value of the nominal output. In other words, when the nominal output of a plant is poorly defined then any percentage of said nominal output is equally poorly defined. The foregoing creates confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02), rendering said claims rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par.
Claim 10 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as being indefinite for the phrase “at 1% to 30% of said nominal ammonia output, preferably 10% to 30%”. When multiple ranges are presented in the same Claim it makes it unclear which range actually limits the Claim. MPEP 2173.05(c)I. In order to be consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111), the broadest range of 1-30% is considered limiting for the purpose of this Office Action, however appropriate correction is still required.
Claim 10 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as being indefinite for the phrase “preferably at 80% or more”. Preferably is interpreted as optionally which gives rise to two ranges (80%+ and 0%+). In order to be consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111) the broadest range of 0% or more is considered limiting for the purpose of this Office Action, however appropriate correction is still required.
Claim 15 requires “the sum of the first amount of steam and second amount of steam, within a desired range, preferably so that said total amount of steam differs by no more than 30% and more preferably no more than 20%”. 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. MPEP 2173.05(c)I. In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation total amount of steam differs by no more than 30%, and the claim also recites preferably no more than 20% 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 claims. Additionally because the “desired range” can be any value (including 0) the amount of steam stored compared to the “desired value” can be any arbitrary number. In order to apply prior art to Claim 15, for the purpose of this Office Action it is understood that Claim 15 requires maintaining any non-zero amount of steam.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/4th par. as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 requires “A process for the production of ammonia and nitric acid, wherein hydrogen is produced from electrolysis of water and used to produce an ammonia make- up gas; said make-up gas is reacted to form ammonia; at least part of said ammonia is used to produce nitric acid, wherein said process is controlled with the method according to claim 1.” Claim 1 requires “wherein in the process, hydrogen is produced from electrolysis of water and used to produce an ammonia make-up gas; said make-up gas is reacted to form ammonia; at least part of said ammonia is used to produce nitric acid”. In other words all of the requirements of Claim 16 are already present in Claim 1 and Claim 16 fails to require any further limitations of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021 060985 A1 Mulder in view of WO 2020 035521 A1 Warner. Claim 1 requires “A method for controlling an integrated process for the synthesis of ammonia and nitric acid, wherein in the process, hydrogen is produced from electrolysis of water and used to produce an ammonia make-up gas; said make-up gas is reacted to form ammonia”. Mulder discloses “During periods of excess of renewable energy, the energy may, for example, be used to generate dihydrogen (H2) via electrolysis. H2 may serve as a (long-term) energy storage gas. In addition, H2 may further be subjected to the Haber Bosch process to generate ammonia (NH3) by reaction with (N2)” [Page 2, Lines 14-16]. Mulder is silent towards nitric acid.
Claim 1 further requires “the method comprising: a selective switching of the process between a first mode of operation and a second mode of operation; in the first mode of operation, the production of ammonia and the production of nitric acid are regulated in such a way that: the process has a first output of nitric acid; ammonia is produced in excess compared to the ammonia required for the production of said first output of nitric acid; the excess of ammonia is stored in a suitable ammonia storage; in the second mode of operation, the production of ammonia and the production of nitric acid are regulated in such a way that: the process has a second output of nitric acid; the produced ammonia is less than the ammonia required for the production of said second output of nitric acid, so that the production of nitric acid requires an additional input of ammonia, and ammonia from said ammonia storage is used to provide said additional input”. Mulder discloses “the method may comprise switching between a first operation mode and a second operation mode. In the first operation mode dihydrogen and dinitrogen may be provided to the reactor, especially at a first supply rate Sa1. Further, in the first operation mode the separator may provide a first fraction F1 of the ammonia from the reactor gas mixture to a product outlet. In the second operation mode dihydrogen and dinitrogen may be provided to the reactor at a second supply rate Sa2, especially wherein Sa1 > Sa2. In the second operation mode the separator may provide a second fraction F2 of the ammonia from the reactor gas mixture to the product outlet. Especially, the first fraction F1 is larger than the second fraction F2. In embodiments, the method may comprise switching between the first operation mode and the second operation mode in dependence of dihydrogen availability to the system, especially to the reactor.” [Page 3, Lines 21-31]. Mulder further discloses ammonia storage “The generated NH3 may serve as a (long-term) energy storage liquid, which may be preferable to the gaseous H2 due to more dense liquid energy storage.” [Page 2, Lines 15-16]. Mulder is silent towards nitric acid.
Claim 1 further requires “the electrolysis of water is powered by at least one power source and the method includes switching between said first mode and second mode based on the amount of power which is transferred from said at least one power source to the electrolysis of water.”. Mulder discloses using renewable energy to generate H2 from water electrolysis (see above) and switching between modes based on H2 availability (see above).
Regarding the features not taught by Mulder, namely the production of nitric acid from ammonia, Warner is directed to methods of making nitric acid from ammonia “A first aspect of the present application provides a process for producing nitric acid, comprising the steps of: (a) catalytically combusting a mixture of ammonia and an oxygen containing fluid in an ammonia burner, …, thereby forming a concentrated aqueous stream comprising nitric acid” [Page 3, Lines 1-10].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Mulder with the method of Warner because the method of Warner requires ammonia from a Haber-Bosch process as a feedstock and the method of Mulder generates ammonia from the Haber-Bosch process as a product. The motivation to have used the method of Mulder to generate the ammonia for the method of Warner is given by Warner “However, an important issue in this context is the intermittency of renewable energy supply. This not only plays a huge role in the cost of production (i.e. operation at reduced load or even being idle for parts of the day), but, in an ammonia production process, this energy intermittency presents an important negative technical effect as well. In particular, unlike the electrolyzers, the current technology of a Haber Bosch loop does not allow the reactor to be started up and shut down multiple times: the catalyst in the process and the materials in the reactor are very sensitive to heating and cooling. Thus, the intermittency provided by renewables such as wind or solar energy can have adverse effects on this part of the process.” [Page 2, Lines 17-24]. In other words, Warner recognized a problem in the synthesis of ammonia (intermittency) which the method of Mulder at least partially remediates. Applying a known solution to a known problem is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2141.III(D).
Claim 2 requires “energy in the form of heat and/or electric energy is exported from the nitric acid production process to the ammonia synthesis process, so that the ammonia synthesis process has a thermal and/or electric power input represented by power imported from the nitric acid production process”. Warner discloses “( f ) expanding the pressurized oxygen containing gas over a first turbine ( 200 ), which is particularly coupled to a generator ( 220 ) for generating electricity” [Page 3, Lines 22-23] and “The electricity may be supplied to one or more front end or upstream processes of the nitric acid production process, such as the electrolysis based production of hydrogen gas in an ammonia production process, and / or for operating an air separation unit for generating nitrogen gas for use in an ammonia production process . Advantageously, the electricity may be supplied to the front end or upstream processes when the supply of renewable energy is interrupted (e.g. at night for solar power)” [Page 3, Line 33 – Page 4, Line 4].
Claim 2 further requires “in the ammonia synthesis process, a ratio of the power imported from the nitric acid production process over total power input is greater in the second mode of operation than in the first mode of operation”. Because the second mode of operation of Mulder has a lower total output than the first mode and Warner motivates a constant production of nitric acid it is understood that the combination of the two methods inherently has a higher ratio of electrical power supplied to the second mode from nitric acid synthesis simply because the electrical power supplied from nitric acid synthesis remains constant while the power supplied from renewables is lower in the second mode.
Claim 3 requires “power imported from the nitric acid production process is used, in the second mode of operation, for compression of the ammonia make-up gas to ammonia synthesis pressure.”. Warner discloses using the electricity generated from the nitric acid production process for one or more upstream processes and lists the air separation for generating nitrogen gas as an example (see Claim 2, above). To the extent that the output of said air separation unit is suitably pressurized to ammonia synthesis pressure, Warner discloses utilizing the electricity for compression of the ammonia make-up gas to ammonia synthesis pressure. To the extent that the output of said air separation unit is not suitably pressurized to ammonia synthesis pressure, doing so would be obvious to render the invention operatable and using the electric power generated from the nitric acid production process as a source would have been obvious over the broad disclosure of “one or more front end or upstream processes” [Page 4, Lines 2-3] because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize gas pressurization as (1) required for operation of efficient ammonia synthesis and (2) a source of electrical energy consumption.
Claim 4 requires “wherein in the first mode of operation hydrogen is produced in excess compared to the hydrogen required for the production of the make-up gas, said excess of hydrogen is stored in a suitable hydrogen storage unit and excess hydrogen accumulated during said first operation mode is used for production of ammonia make-up gas during the second mode of operation.”. Mulder discloses using either H2 or NH3 as an energy storage gas and “H2 is generated as a function of renewable energy availability, and wherein H2 storage is used as a buffer. The NH3 generation may then be made continuous by withdrawing H2 from the H2 storage buffer. The intermediate storage of H2 may, however, require substantially more space and cost related to the large storage capacity cost than the direct storage of (liquid) NH3 would require.” [Page 2, Line 30-35]. It is therefore understood that using a NH3 buffer is the preferred embodiment and using a H2 buffer is a non-preferred embodiment. Although Mulder identifies drawbacks to the H2 storage buffer, a non-preferred embodiment does not constitute a teaching away, see MPEP 2123.II.
Claim 5 requires “said at least one power source of the electrolysis of water includes at least one source of renewable energy and the method includes switching between said first mode and second mode based on the amount of power made available by said source of renewable energy.”. Mulder discloses “During periods of excess of renewable energy, the energy may, for example, be used to generate dihydrogen (H2) via electrolysis.” [Page 2, Lines 13-14] and “In embodiments, the method may comprise switching between the first operation mode and the second operation mode in dependence of dihydrogen availability to the system, especially to the reactor.” [Page 3, Lines 29-31].
Claim 6 requires “the first mode of operation is selected when the power made available by said at least one source of renewable energy is above a first threshold value and the second mode of operation is selected when the power made available by said at least one power source of renewable energy falls below a second threshold value”. Mulder discloses “In embodiments, the method may comprise switching to the first operation mode if dihydrogen availability is above a first predetermined threshold, and switching to the second operation mode if the dihydrogen availability is below a second predetermined threshold. For example, the method may comprise switching to the first operation mode if sufficient dihydrogen is available to operate the reactor in the first operation mode (at full capacity) for at least a predetermined time period, such as one hour, and the method may comprise switching to the second operation mode when the reactor can no longer be operated in the first operation mode.” [Page 5, Line 30 – Page 6, Line 2].
Claim 7 requires “said renewable energy is solar energy.”. Mulder discloses “Renewable energy from, for example, wind mills and solar panels may have an inherent variability due to weather conditions.” [Page 2, Lines 7-8]. Although the example given by Mulder uses both solar and wind power it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used renewable energy from whatever source the grid is willing and able to provide, including only/primarily solar energy because electricity from different sources is the same (there is no effect on downstream processes that comes from where the electricity was derived).
Claim 8 requires “the production of ammonia is performed in an ammonia plant and the production of nitric acid is performed in a nitric acid plant connected to the ammonia plant; the ammonia plant has a nominal ammonia output and the nitric acid plant has a nominal nitric acid output, said nominal nitric acid output corresponding to said nominal ammonia output bring partially or entirely transferred from the ammonia plant to the nitric acid plant for the production of nitric acid; in the first mode of operation the nitric acid plant is run at a partial load having a nitric acid output less than its nominal output, and in the second mode of operation the ammonia plant is run at a partial load having an ammonia output less than its nominal output.” Warner discloses a nitric acid plant connected to an ammonia synthesis plant and using liquid ammonia as a storage, the same as Mulder (“In some embodiments, the ammonia produced in the ammonia production section of a combined and integrated ammonia and nitric acid production process can be seen as an intermediate energy storage medium, like a battery, to be used when sufficient renewable energy is not available, to maintain a good utilization of the electrolyzer and the Haber - Bosch ammonia loop . Ammonia combustion thus provides the electricity for the front end ammonia production, concomitantly with the production of nitric acid” [Page 15, Lines 11-17]) (see Claim 1 for Mulder’s disclosure of storing liquid NH3). Furthermore it is understood that if the goal of Warner, a consistent and steady output of nitric acid, is to be achieved with the two modes of operating the ammonia synthesis plant suggested by Mulder then the first process must produce excess ammonia (the nitric acid plant is less than full capacity of the ammonia synthesis plant) compared to the time averaged production of ammonia.
Claim 9 requires “in the first mode of operation the ammonia plant is operated at 80% or more of said nominal ammonia output and the nitric acid plant is operated at 50% to 80% of said nominal nitric acid output.”. Regarding the first mode Mulder discloses “In further embodiments, the first fraction F1≥5%, especially ≥10%, such as ≥30%, especially ≥60, such as ≥95%, especially ≥98%, such as ≥99%. The first fraction F1 may essentially be as high as enabled by the separator.” [Page 8, Lines 7-9] which overlaps significantly with the range claimed. Neither Warner nor Mulder explicitly motivate “the nitric acid plant is operated at 50% to 80% of said nominal nitric acid output”, however from Warner it is clear that consistent output is valued and therefore the output of the nitric acid plant must be less than the output of the ammonia output in the first mode (the first mode stores gasses such as H2/NH3 as an energy source for later use). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nitric acid output must be lower than the ammonia output in the first mode, broadly this can be interpreted as covering the entire range 0-100% of the ammonia output excluding the end points. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any suitable value, including within the claimed range of 62.5-100% of the actual ammonia output. Selecting a value between 62.5-100% would have produced predictable results (the ammonia buffer tank fills at a predictable rate).
Claim 10 requires “in the second mode of operation the ammonia plant is operated at 1% to 30% of said nominal ammonia output, preferably 10% to 30% and the nitric acid plant is operated preferably at 80% or more of said nominal nitric acid output.”. 112(b) issues notwithstanding, Mulder discloses “In further embodiments, the second fraction F2≤5%, especially ≤4%, such as ≤3%, especially ≤2%, such as ≤1%, including 0%. Especially, the second fraction F2 may essentially be zero.” [Page 8, Lines 12-14]. It is noted that F2 denotes how much ammonia is allowed to leave the system (the rest is recycled). Therefore, it is understood that Mulder discloses operating the ammonia plant at 0-5% output during the second mode which overlaps significantly with the range claimed. Regarding the nitric acid output Warner motivates a near constant production of nitric acid which may be any percentage of a nominal amount.
Claim 11 requires “during the second mode of operation, part of the ammonia withdrawn from the ammonia storage is combusted to provide an additional source of energy in the form of heat and/or electric energy”. Warner discloses combustion ammonia to provide heat and electrical energy “( a ) catalytically combusting a mixture of ammonia and an oxygen containing fluid in an ammonia burner, thereby forming an ammonia combustion stream, wherein the stream comprises nitric oxide … ( e ) evaporating or boiling the pressurized oxygen containing liquid, in particular by heat recuperated down stream from the ammonia burner, thereby obtaining a pressurized oxygen containing gas ; and ( f ) expanding the pressurized oxygen containing gas over a first turbine ( 200 ), which is particularly coupled to a generator ( 220 ) for generating electricity” [Page 5 Line 21 – Page 6, Line 8].
Claim 12 requires “the integrated process further includes the production of ammonium nitrate from at least part of the produced ammonia and nitric acid, the method including that in the first mode of operation the ammonium nitrate production process is operated at a reduced output.”. Warner discloses “The production process and system of nitric acid, particularly the combined and integrated production process and system of ammonia and nitric acid, as contemplated in the present application in the different aspects and embodiments described herein, may further comprise a step of and / or means / systems for further processing the nitric acid to a fertilizer product, such as an ammonium nitrate or calcium nitrate fertilizer product” [Page 22, Lines 11-15]. It is understood that if the ammonia production output is reduced, for example to take advantage of renewable energy as disclosed by Mulder (see Claim 1), then the ammonium nitrate produced from said ammonia production can also be considered reduced.
Claim 13 requires “the first mode of operation the ammonium nitrate production process is operated at 50% to 80% of its nominal output, and in the second mode of operation the ammonium nitrate production process is operated at 80% or more of its nominal output.”. This is understood to require the same limitations as Claim 9, other than ammonium nitrate is produced rather than nitric acid. Therefore it is understood that the process as detailed above (see Claim 9) applied to Warner’s disclosure of producing ammonium nitrate instead of nitric acid as the final product (see Claim 12) meets the limitations of Claim 13.
Claim 14 requires “energy is exported from the ammonium nitrate production process to the ammonia synthesis process in the form of heat and/or electric energy, so that the ammonia synthesis process has a thermal and/or electric power input from the ammonium nitrate production process.”. It is understood that producing nitric acid as an intermediate is required for the process of ammonium nitrate production by Warner. Warner discloses exporting electrical energy from the nitric acid synthesis process to the ammonia synthesis process (see Claim 2).
112(b) issues notwithstanding (see above), Claim 15 requires “a first amount of steam (12) is produced from heat removed from the ammonia production process and a second amount of steam (11) is produced from heat removed from the nitric acid production process; the switching between the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation is controlled to maintain a total amount of steam”. Mulder does not disclose storing steam, however they do disclose storing heat in order to generate steam “The recycle loop may be arranged to exchange heat with the temperature storage medium, especially a molten salt, such as in a counterflow arrangement.” [Page 21, Lines 18-20] and “In particular, the heat from the temperature storage medium may be applied in the second operation mode for providing steam for the compressor feed, especially in embodiments wherein the compressor feed comprises the high pressure steam generator” [Page 22, Lines 14-16]. The preferred embodiment of a molten salt temperature storage medium does not constitute a teaching away from alternative temperature storage mediums. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to employ any known practical temperature storage medium to practice the method of Mulder, including storing steam directly. Using steam directly can save on initial capital investment and represents using a known technique to achieve predictable results.
Claim 16 requires “A process for the production of ammonia and nitric acid, wherein hydrogen is produced from electrolysis of water and used to produce an ammonia make- up gas; said make-up gas is reacted to form ammonia; at least part of said ammonia is used to produce nitric acid, wherein said process is controlled with the method according to claim 1.”. Mulder discloses producing hydrogen from water electrolysis to produce ammonia (see Claim 1) and Warner discloses using ammonia to produce nitric acid.
Claim 17 requires “the production of ammonium nitrate from that at least part of the produced ammonia and nitric acid.”. Warner discloses producing ammonium nitrate from ammonia and nitric acid (see Claim 12).
Claim 18 requires “generating oxygen from the water electrolysis and supplying of at least a portion of said oxygen to the catalytic conversion of ammonia and/or to a stripping step of a nitric acid solution.”. Warner discloses “The produced ammonia is then supplied to a nitric acid production process, where it is burnt with oxygen and converted into nitric acid. This oxygen can be supplied via air, but, advantageously, oxygen generated by the electrolysis unit and/or air separation unit is used, thus intensifying the nitric acid production” [Page 14, Lines 10-14].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-T and Th-F 8am-6pm PST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights