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Claims 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-20 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 requires performing at least one steps a), b), or c) and requires performing all of steps A), B), and C). It is noted that step a) does not necessarily correlate with step A), nor b) with B), etc. To avoid confusion one set of steps should be changed to an alternative numbering system (1, 2, 3 or i, ii, iii). Claim 20 reads “… heat from the exhaust of the gas turbine is used to provide energy input of the rectification of the CO2.”, but should read “… heat from the exhaust of the gas turbine is used to provide energy input of the rectification of the CO2.” (emphasis added) 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 9 and 16-17 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.
Claim 9 requires “the steam turbine”. This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 does have antecedent support for ‘the gas turbine’ and therefore in order to apply prior art Claim 9 is interpreted as requiring “the gas turbine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16 and 17 similarly require “no more than 10% of carbon” [16] and “no more than 5% of carbon” [17]. However, it is unclear if the percentage of carbon is based on mass or moles (or another unit). The specification does not provide further guidance for how the phrase “10% of carbon”/” 5% of carbon” should be interpreted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, which causes confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof (MPEP 2173.02), rendering claims 16-17 rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par., said claims have been interpreted via the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (MPEP 2111) to recite any percentage unit (mass%, mol%, etc.).
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 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2233433 A1 Hydrogen Energy International Limited Weybridge, herein after referred to as HEI, in further view of FR 3013106 A1 Antoine et al. Claim 1 requires “reforming a hydrocarbon-containing gas to obtain a hydrogen-containing synthesis gas”. HEI discloses “introducing to an autothermal reactor an oxidant feed stream comprising oxygen or enriched air comprising at least 25 mol % oxygen (on a dry basis) and optionally steam and a fuel feed stream comprising methane and optionally hydrogen and/or steam to an autothermal reactor unit (ATR) for the production of synthesis gas” [0006]. It is understood that methane is a hydrocarbon containing gas and that synthesis gas contains H2.
Claim 1 requires “wherein the step of preheating at least one process stream of the reforming process includes at least one of: a) preheating the hydrocarbon-containing gas prior to reforming of said hydrocarbon-containing gas in an autothermal reformer (ATR); b) preheating the hydrocarbon-containing gas prior to pre-reforming of said hydrocarbon-containing gas in a pre-reformer; or c) preheating the hydrocarbon-containing gas directed to a reforming process prior to removal of sulphur from said hydrocarbon-containing gas”. HEI discloses at least step a) “(i) the temperature of the fuel feed stream is in the range 350 to 700°C” [0006].
Claim 1 further requires “A) reforming is performed by pure autothermal reforming with a steam to carbon ratio of no more than 2.0, with pre-reforming in an adiabatic reactor, without a previous primary reforming in a furnace with a radiant section including tubes filled with catalyst”. Regarding the steam to carbon ratio HEI discloses “Preferably, the molar ratio of steam to carbon (in hydrocarbons) in the fuel feed stream is within the range of 0:1 to 3:1, preferably, 0.3:1 to 3:1, in particular 0.5:1 to 2.0:1.” [0013]. Regarding pre-reforming HEI discloses “Typically, the fuel feed stream is produced by passing a pre-reformer feed stream comprising a hydrocarbon feedstock and steam through a pre-reformer that contains a pre-reforming catalyst to obtain a fuel feed stream” [0020]. Regarding previous primary reforming in a furnace with a radiant section including tubes filled with catalyst, HEI is silent towards primary reforming outside of the ATR and therefore it is understood that the method of HEI does not require primary reforming previous to the reforming in an ATR.
Claim 1 further requires “B) superheated steam is generated by cooling the hot effluent of the autothermal reforming, prior to removal of carbon dioxide”. HEI discloses “withdrawing a synthesis gas stream comprising methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, steam and optionally nitrogen from the ATR and heat exchanging the synthesis gas stream with at least one process stream selected from the group consisting of … steam for the production of superheated steam” [0006]. It is noted that carbon dioxide is still present in the synthesis gas stream during this heat exchange.
Claim 1 further requires “after removal of carbon dioxide, the reformed gas is further purified by cryogenic condensation and removal of methane”. HEI discloses removing CO2 “After removal of condensate, the shift converted gas stream is passed to a CO2 removal unit for formation of a concentrated carbon dioxide stream and a hydrogen stream … Typically, the hydrogen gas stream may comprise trace amount of carbon oxides (CO and CO2) and methane, for example, less than 500 ppm on a molar basis.” [0040-0041], however they do not disclose cryogenic condensation of methane.
Antoine et al. is similarly directed to methods of treating synthesis gas streams from autothermal reformers and discloses cryogenic separation of methane “a cryogenic separation process by nitrogen washing is provided for the production of a hydrogen-nitrogen mixture containing less than 1% CH4 and/or less than 1% CO, wherein: i) a synthesis gas containing hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, and less than 5% carbon monoxide is cooled in a heat exchanger and partially condensed to produce a hydrogen-enriched gas and a first methane-enriched liquid” [0002].
Claim 1 further requires “said step C) includes cooling the gas until methane is liquified and can be removed, the removed liquified methane being recycled as a feed gas of the reforming process”. Antoine et al. discloses liquefied methane (see above) and recycling it to an autothermal reactor “The plan is to valorize CH4 by recycling it in a synthesis gas production system to increase the production of H2 molecules, for example by using it as a feed gas in a reforming furnace, an autothermal reactor or a partial oxidation reactor” [0001].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of HEI with the method of Antoine et al. for at least the reason that HEI discloses a stream of H2, CO, and methane while Antoine et al. is directed to a method of treating streams of H2, CO, and methane for further purification. The motivation to have combined the method of purification of Antoine et al. with the method of HEI is that the H2 resulting would have been at a higher purity which increases its value.
Claim 2 requires “in step C), said removal of methane is followed by liquid nitrogen wash of the methane-depleted gas to remove inerts.”. Antione et al. discloses “i) a synthesis gas containing hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, and less than 5% carbon monoxide is cooled in a heat exchanger and partially condensed to produce a hydrogen-enriched gas and a first methane-enriched liquid; ii) the hydrogen-enriched gas is partially condensed to produce a hydrogen-enriched vapor and a second methane-enriched liquid; iii) at least a portion of the hydrogen-enriched vapor is sent to a scrubbing column; iv) liquid nitrogen is sent to the top of the scrubbing column; y) the hydrogen-nitrogen mixture is withdrawn from the top of the scrubbing column; vi) the first and second methane-enriched liquids are mixed, the mixture is expanded, and heats at least part of it in the heat exchanger to form a methane-rich gas.” [0002]. Steps iii) and iv) correspond to washing a methane depleted gas by liquid nitrogen.
Claim 3 requires “producing mechanical power with a gas turbine engine”. HEI discloses “combusting at least part of the hydrogen stream in a gas turbine wherein the gas turbine drives an electric generator” [0006]. Driving an electric generator requires mechanical power.
Claim 3 further requires “wherein a heat source of said preheating includes exhaust gas of said gas turbine engine, and wherein said preheating includes a heat transfer from said exhaust gas to said process stream and said heat transfer is performed in an indirect heat exchanger wherein the exhaust gas and the process stream do not mix.”. HEI discloses “Combustion of the hydrogen stream in the gas turbine in step (f) generates an exhaust gas. Optionally, the exhaust gas from the gas turbine may be heat exchanged with the steam produced in step (b) and/or with any steam produced in step (d) for the production of superheated steam. … The superheated steam that is generated by heat exchange with the exhaust gas may be used for one or more purposes including … , using the steam to heat the fuel feed stream, …” [0009]. Although steam is used as an intermediate the heat source is ultimately still the exhaust gas. HEI does not explicitly disclose “heat transfer is performed in an indirect heat exchanger wherein the exhaust gas and the process stream do not mix”, however they do disclose heat exchangers (“in heat exchanger 25a” [0061], “in heat exchanger 23a” [0063]) and because the normal operation of heat exchangers within the art does not include allowing the gasses to mix it is understood that HEI implicitly discloses that the gasses do mix within the heat exchanger.
Claim 4 requires “producing electrical energy with a generator coupled to said gas turbine engine.”. HEI discloses “combusting at least part of the hydrogen stream in a gas turbine wherein the gas turbine drives an electric generator” [0006].
Claim 5 requires “the gas turbine engine operates with a simple cycle where no heat from the exhaust gas of said gas turbine engine is used in a heat recovery steam generator to produce steam for a steam turbine.”. Although HEI discloses using heat from the exhaust gas to produce steam for a steam turbine “The superheated steam that is generated by heat exchange with the exhaust gas may be used for one or more purposes including supplying the steam to a steam turbine for the production of further electricity, using the steam to drive mechanical process equipment such as pumps and/or compressors, using the steam to heat the fuel feed stream, using the steam to provide energy for the carbon dioxide separation unit, using the steam to provide energy to dehydrate the concentrated carbon dioxide stream, or exporting the steam to an external process duty.” [0009], this is listed as one of many possible options. In other words although some embodiments of HEI include using heat from the exhaust gas to produce steam for a steam turbine, this does not constitute a teaching away from other embodiments where the steam is used for other purposes.
Claim 6 requires “said exhaust gas traverses a first side of said indirect heat exchanger and the process fluid traverses a second side of said heat exchanger, and heat is transferred from the exhaust gas to the process fluid while they traverse the first side and second side of the heat exchangers.”. HEI does not explicitly disclose how the gasses flow through the heat exchanger, however, as this is the conventional way to use a heat exchanger it is understood that HEI implicitly discloses the above features when they disclose that a heat exchanger is used (see Claim 3).
Claim 11 requires “a step of steam superheating with exhaust gas as heat source, said steam superheating being performed first in the sequence.”. HEI discloses steam superheating “Combustion of the hydrogen stream in the gas turbine in step (f) generates an exhaust gas. Optionally, the exhaust gas from the gas turbine may be heat exchanged with the steam produced in step (b) and/or with any steam produced in step (d) for the production of superheated steam. … The superheated steam that is generated by heat exchange with the exhaust gas may be used for one or more purposes including … , using the steam to heat the fuel feed stream, …” [0009]. Because the heat flows from the exhaust to the steam and then to the feedstock gases the superheating is the first step.
Claim 12 requires “a post-firing of the exhaust gas prior to one or more pre-heating process”. HEI discloses post firing of the exhaust gas with hydrogen from the process “Suitably, the various process streams are heat exchanged with the exhaust gas in a heat recovery unit that is arranged downstream of the gas turbine. Optionally, the temperature of the exhaust gas of the gas turbine is increased by providing the heat recovery unit with a post-firing system, for example, a post-firing burner. Suitably, the post-firing burner is fed with a portion of the hydrogen stream produced in step (e) and the hydrogen is combusted in the burner using residual oxygen contained in the exhaust gas.” [0049]. It is understood that the post-firing happens before the pre-heating because doing so otherwise would simply waste the heat energy obtained through post-firing.
Claim 13 requires “the post-firing is performed by mixing the exhaust gas with a CO2-depleted hydrogen-containing gas generated in the process.”. HEI discloses post-firing with hydrogen produced in step e) (see Claim 12). It is noted that step (e) is a CO2 removal process (“(e) passing the shift converted gas stream to a carbon dioxide separation unit for the separation of a concentrated carbon dioxide stream from a hydrogen stream comprising hydrogen and optionally nitrogen” [0006]) and therefore the stream leaving step e) is a CO2-depleted hydrogen-containing gas generated in the process.
Claim 14 requires “firing the gas turbine engine with a fuel gas including a CO2-depleted hydrogen-containing gas generated in the process, optionally mixed with natural gas.”. HEI discloses “Combustion of the hydrogen stream in the gas turbine in step (f) generates an exhaust gas.” [0009]. It is noted that step (e) is a CO2 removal process (see Claim 13) and therefore the hydrogen in a further step, step f) can be considered a CO2-depleted hydrogen-containing gas.
Claim 15 requires “using the hydrogen-containing gas as a makeup gas for the synthesis of ammonia optionally after addition of nitrogen.”. HEI discloses “Preferably, the hydrogen stream that is separated in the carbon dioxide separation unit is used as (1) fuel for the combustor of a gas turbine of a power plant thereby generating electricity (2) optionally as fuel for a post-firing burner of a heat recovery unit of the power plant and (3) optionally a portion of the hydrogen stream is added to the hydrocarbon feedstock. However, it is envisaged that a portion of the hydrogen stream may also be used as fuel for a low pressure burner of a fired heater, or as fuel for a reformer or boiler or as a refinery feed stream for upgrading of one or more refinery streams or as a hydrogen feed to a chemical process.”. It is therefore understood that using at least a portion of the hydrogen generated as feed for a chemical process, such as the synthesis of ammonia, is a non-preferred embodiment of the method of HEI. The prior art is good for all it contains, including non-preferred embodiments, see MPEP 2123.
Additionally, Antione et al. specifically motivates further purification of a H2 stream such that CO and CH4 levels are controlled to be low enough that ammonia can be efficiently produced “To produce an H2/N2 mixture containing very low levels of CH4 and CO (especially for the production of ammonia), the most suitable process is the nitrogen washing process.” [0001], which makes the use of the hydrogen generated by the combined methods of HEI and Antoine et al. implicitly disclosed.
Claim 16 requires “a post-firing of exhaust gas of the gas turbine engine wherein the fuel of the gas turbine engine and the fuel used to post-fire the exhaust gas is a hydrogen-containing gas produced internally in the process and contain no more than 10% of carbon.”. HEI discloses “Typically, the hydrogen gas stream may comprise trace amount of carbon oxides (CO and CO2) and methane, for example, less than 500 ppm on a molar basis.” [0041] which is understood to be equivalent to 0.05 mol % carbon.
Claim 17 requires “the fuel of the gas turbine engine and the fuel used to post-fire the exhaust gas contain no more than 5% of carbon.”. HEI discloses no more than 0.05% carbon (see Claim 16).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2233433 A1 HEI, in further view of FR 3013106 A1 Antoine et al., in further view of US 2005176831 A1 Inui et al. Regarding Claim 7, HEI and Antione et al. teach all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 3. Claim 7 further requires “exhaust gas from the gas turbine engine transfers heat to preheating processes according to two or more of the options a) to c) and in a sequence according to the order a) to c), so that the exhaust gas effluent of one preheating process of the sequence is used as heat source for the subsequent process of the sequence, in accordance with said order.”. Although HEI discloses preheating multiple streams (for a) see Claim 1, for b) “The steam that is fed to the pre-reformer may be a steam exhaust stream from the steam turbine or steam that is generated by heat exchange of water with the exhaust gas from the gas turbine thereby further integrating the pre-reformer with the combined cycle power plant.” [0034]) they do not explicitly disclose the order of the preheating steps.
Inui et al. is similarly directed to methods of enhancing the hydrogen yield of hydrocarbon reforming to syngas by recovering waste heat. Inui et al. discloses in Figure 1 (see below) a heat recovery system wherein heat from the exhaust first heats stream 11, then stream 10, then stream 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because stream 11 is feedstock going to the reformer, stream 10 is going to a pre reformer, and stream 9 goes to a desulfurization column (“a desulfurization column 3 and a pre-reformer (adiabatic pre-reformer) 12.” [0022]) it is understood that the method of Inui et al. discloses all of the pre-heating steps a)-c) in order. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the methods of HEI and Inui et al. for at least the reason that they are similarly addressed to methods of recovering waste heat in an ATR. The motivation to have combined the heat recovery system of Inui et al. with the ATR of HEI is for increased utilization of waste heat, “It is an object of the present invention to provide a Steam reforming System with high thermal efficiency” [Inui et al. at 0010].
Claim 8 requires “a first preheating process according to option a) wherein exhaust gas from the gas turbine engine transfers heat to a hydrocarbon gas prior to reforming; a second preheating process according to option b) wherein exhaust gas cooled after said first preheating process transfers heat to a hydrocarbon gas prior to a pre-reforming; a third preheating process according to step c) wherein exhaust gas further cooled after the second preheating process transfers heat to a hydrocarbon gas prior to a desulphurization process.”. Inui et al. discloses performing steps a)-c) in order (see Claim 7).
Claim 9 requires “the full amount of heat transferred to the hydrocarbon gas in each of the preheating processes according to a), b) and c) is provided by the exhaust gas of the steam turbine.”. 112(b) issues notwithstanding, HEI discloses an optional post-firing step of the exhaust gas to increase its temperature (see Claim 12). Therefore, it is understood that in embodiments of HEI wherein the post-firing step is not used all of the heat energy used in the pre-heating comes from the exhaust gas of the turbine.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2233433 A1 HEI, in further view of FR 3013106 A1 Antoine et al., in further view of NPL “Use of Carbon Dioxide in Enhanced Oil Recovery” Orr et al. Regarding Claim 18, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are taught by the combination of HEI and Antione et al. Claim 18 further requires “wherein: at least some of the carbon dioxide removed from the reformed gas is compressed at a high pressure above 100 bar, and the so obtained high-pressure carbon dioxide is stored under pressure for carbon capture or used for enhanced oil recovery or for the synthesis of urea.”. HEI discloses “The concentrated carbon dioxide stream 27 from the CO2 removal unit 26 is then fed to a carbon dioxide compression and drying unit 29. The resulting pressurized and dehydrated concentrated carbon dioxide stream may be introduced to a pipeline that delivers the CO2 to an injection well for enhanced recovery of hydrocarbons from a hydrocarbon-bearing formation via an associated production well (not shown).” [0043]. HEI does not disclose the pressure, however it may reasonably be assumed to be over 60 bar “Typically, the concentrated CO2 stream is dehydrated at a pressure of 20 to 60 barg. Suitably, the water content of the concentrated CO2 stream is reduced in a suction knock out drum. The concentrated CO2 stream is then compressed” [0042].
Orr et al. is more specifically related to the use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Figure 3 [Page 566] clearly shows that oil recovery increases as pressure increases and that this effect requires higher pressures of CO2 at higher temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art of enhanced oil recovery would know that the ambient temperature is related to the depth of the oil well. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the methods of HEI and Orr et al. because HEI discloses enhanced oil recovery as a potential use for the CO2 stream and Orr et al. is directed to efficient methods of using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The motivation to have used a pressure of at least 100 bar is given by Orr et al. in Figure 3. Specifically whenever an oil field with an ambient temperature of 66 °C or higher is the target oil field a pressure of 14 MPa (140 bar) corresponds to maximum oil recovery.
Claim 19 requires “said high pressure is in a range 150 to 200 bar.”. Orr et al. motivates using a CO2 pressure of about 17 MPa (170 bar) when the temperature of the oil field is about 89 °C (see Figure 3, Page 566).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would potentially be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art to Claim 10 is given by EP 2233433 A1 HEI, in further view of FR 3013106 A1 Antoine et al., in further view of US 2005176831 A1 Inui et al., by virtue of teaching Claim 8 upon which Claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 further requires “a process of pre-heating of a boiler feed water which is in parallel to the third preheating process of option c)”. Inui et al. teaches a preheating of boiler feed water parallel to the third heating process of option c) in Figure 3 (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
562
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where heat exchanger 11, 10, and 9 correspond to options a, b, and c (respectively) and heat exchanger 13 is a boiler feed. It can be seen that exhaust gas travels from turbine 7 and splits into parallel streams 31 and 27 to feed two parallel heat recovery units.
Claim 10 further requires “wherein the exhaust gas from the second pre-heating process of option b) is split between the third pre-heating process and said parallel pre-heating of boiler feed water.”. Inui et al. does not disclose splitting the exhaust gas after heat exchanger 10 to be split between heat exchanger 9 and 16, 15, and 13 but rather recombining the parallel streams after steam has been superheated (heat exchanger 16). Furthermore Inui et al. does not motivate an alternative embodiment wherein the streams are split according to Claim 28.
The closest prior art to Claim 20 is given by EP 2233433 A1 HEI, in further view of FR 3013106 A1 Antoine et al., in further view of NPL “Use of Carbon Dioxide in Enhanced Oil. Recovery” Orr et al., by virtue of teaching Claim 18, upon which Claim 20 depends. Claim 20 further requires “wherein said carbon dioxide is liquified, rectified and recompressed for use in the enhanced oil recovery, wherein heat from the exhaust of the gas turbine is used to provide energy input of the rectification of the CO2.”. HEI discloses liquifying CO2 “Where the concentrated CO2 stream is obtained from a CO2 removal unit that employs a membrane or a CO2 absorber and desorber, the concentrated CO2 stream may be compressed to above its critical pressure such that the concentrated CO2 stream is in a dense phase state (liquid or supercritical state). Where the concentrated CO2 stream is obtained from a CO2 removal unit that comprises one or more cryogenic separation stages, the concentrated CO2 stream will already be in a dense phase state and is therefore may be pumped to the desired pipeline pressure.” [0043], however they fail to disclose the steps of rectifying and recompressing the CO2. Although the steps of liquefying, rectifying and recompressing CO2 is generally known it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the process to the CO2 stream of HEI because this represents an additional process cost and the use of CO2 in enhanced oil recovery does not particularly require high purity CO2 to be used.
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
