DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The election/restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
"Wherein" clauses are a type of claim language that may raise a question as to its limiting effect on the claim. The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). (see MPEP 2111.04).
Claims 5 and 12 recite “wherein the heat is used for the conversion of syngas to liquid fuel.”
Claims 6 and 13 recite “wherein the electricity is used for running the electrolyzer.”
The wherein clauses recited in claims 5-6 and 12-13 do not give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps of the recited method and therefore, it is unclear whether the clauses add to the scope of the claims which renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 5 and 12 are being interpreted as the combustible gas stream generated from the instant process is fed to a heating source and the heat generated is fed to the instant process.
Claims 6 and 13 are being interpreted as the combustible gas stream generated from the instant process is fed to an electrical generation source and the electricity generated is fed to the instant process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darcy et al. (WO20223064089 A1, published 04/20/2023, PTO-892).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Darcy et al. teaches processes and systems for producing hydrocarbon fuels having high carbon conversion efficiency. FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of a system for producing hydrocarbon fuels. The system 100 provides an overall system for producing hydrocarbon-based fuels with high carbon conversion efficiency. The system 100 provides a continuous process for converting biomass and, optionally natural gas, into synthesis gas (“syngas”). The syngas is ultimately converted to a hydrocarbon-based fuel, e.g., jet fuel, via hydrocarbon synthesis utilizing the Fischer Tropsch process and, optionally, fuel upgrading. The conversion of biomass to liquid is often referred to as “BTL” and the conversion of natural gas to liquid is often referred to as “GTL”. The system 100 may be configured to convert feedstock 105 (e.g., biomass) into hydrocarbon-based fuels. The feedstock 105 may be supplied to the feedstock processing unit 110. The feedstock processing unit 110 removes metals, inorganic materials, and other materials to produce a processed feedstock 115. The gasification unit 120 converts the processed feedstock 115 into a crude syngas stream 125. The crude syngas stream 125 produced from the gasification unit 120 may include carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen, tars, and volatiles. The system 100 may include a high temperature, non-catalytic reforming unit 130 for the partial oxidation of methane and other hydrocarbons contained in the crude syngas stream 125 with an oxygen-containing gas. Processed syngas stream 135 from the reforming unit 130 can be processed in a syngas conditioning unit for further purification of the syngas before being combined with green or renewable hydrogen and supplied to the Fischer Tropsch reactor. The compressor(s) 140 are configured to pressurize the processed syngas stream 135 to a predefined level to produce a compressed syngas stream 145. The scrubber 150 is configured to remove contaminants from the compressed syngas stream 145 to produce a purified syngas stream 151. The purified syngas stream 151 may be supplied to the Fischer Tropsch reactor 180 as either the main or only carbon-containing feedstock. In some embodiments, a secondary syngas stream 171 is also a feedstock for the Fischer Tropsch reactor 180. he Fischer Tropsch reactor 180 synthetically produces higher hydrocarbon liquids by catalytically converting syngas in a strongly exothermic process. The system 100 includes a water electrolysis unit 155. The water produced from the aforementioned units (e.g., gasifier, Fischer Tropsch reactor, etc.) in the system 100 can be processed in a water treatment unit and then supplied to the water electrolysis unit 155. The purified water stream 182 from the Fischer Tropsch reactor 180 can be supplied to the water electrolysis unit 155. The water electrolysis unit 155 can convert the purified water into an oxygen stream 156 and a hydrogen stream 157, which can be supplied to other units in the system 100. For example, the oxygen stream 156 produced from the water electrolysis unit 155 can be supplied to the gasification unit 120, the reforming unit 130, the reverse water-gas-shift reactor 170, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the oxygen stream 156 prior to being supplied to the reverse water-gas-shift reactor 170. The hydrogen stream 157 produced from the water electrolysis unit 155 can be supplied to the reverse water-gas-shift reactor 170. In some embodiment, the hydrogen stream 157 is compressed prior to being supplied to the reverse water-gas-shift reactor 170. The reverse water-gas-shift reactor 170 may be configured to provide a catalyzed process to convert hydrogen and CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO), which is combined with additional hydrogen to form syngas. The syngas 171 produced from the reverse water-gas-shift reactor 170 can then be supplied to the Fischer Tropsch reactor 180 to produce additional hydrocarbon fuel. In some embodiments, the electrolysis unit is powered by solar energy, wind energy, hydroelectric energy, nuclear energy, or tidal energy. In some embodiments, the process includes scrubbing the carbon dioxide stream in a carbon dioxide scrubber to produce purified carbon dioxide, wherein the purified carbon dioxide is electrolyzed in the electrolysis unit. In some embodiments, the process includes reacting the additional syngas in the Fischer Tropsch reactor to produce additional hydrocarbons. In some embodiments, the process includes sequestering additional CO2 produced in the process. In some embodiments, the approximate additional power for electrolysis of water produced in the system ranges from 30 MW to 80 MW per ton of hydrogen produced from the reverse fuel cell or electrolysis unit. Electric power generated on site (either by using steam generated on site to power steam turbine generators or by installing Solar or Wind turbine power generation) may be used for a source of power to drive electrolysis of water to produce portions of the hydrogen and oxygen needed for plant process operations. Additional hydrogen, beyond what is available in the biomass feedstock is required in the biomass gasification, conversion to liquids and associated cleanup processes. Since the electrolysis process splits water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen, it provides some of the oxygen needed in overall plant operations. In some embodiments, the processes and systems described herein use renewable energy resources (e.g., solar, wind, etc.) to provide power for individual units in the system. Additionally, waste heat is recovered where economically viable to generate electric power for reuse in the system. (see 0030-0043).
Regarding instant claim 1, 120 in FIG. 1 shows a biomass gasifier which provides 125 in FIG. 1, corresponding to the instant first product stream of instant step (a). 155 in FIG. 1, corresponding to the instant electrolyzer, is fed water to provide 157, corresponding to the instant second product stream comprising hydrogen, and 156, corresponding to the instant third product comprising oxygen, as required by instant step (b). FIG. 1 shows the combination of 157, corresponding to the instant second product stream and 151, corresponding to the instant first product stream, to provide the 151 and 157 in combination, corresponding to the instant first feed stream, entering the reactor 180, as required by instant steps (c) and (d). 180 in FIG. 1 comprises a catalyst that catalyzes the conversion of syngas to liquid fuel thereby producing liquid fuels as required by instant step (d).
Regarding instant claim 3, the oxygen stream 156, corresponding to the instant third product stream, produced from the water electrolysis unit 155 can be supplied to the gasification unit 120.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 4 “wherein combination of the second product stream with the first product stream increases the amount of liquid fuels produced, as compared to a process where only the first product stream is fed into the liquid fuel production reactor, by an amount ranging from 10 percent by volume to 100 percent by volume”, the amount of liquid fuel produced would necessarily flow from the method to produce the liquid fuel. Therefore, since the active steps of the method are anticipated by Darcy et al., the amount of liquid fuel produced is also anticipated.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 7 “wherein feeding the third product stream to the biomass gasifier increases the amount of liquid fuels produced, as compared to a process where the third product stream is not feed to the biomass gasifier, by an amount ranging from 10 percent by volume to 100 percent by volume”, the amount of liquid fuel produced would necessarily flow from the method to produce the liquid fuel. Therefore, since the active steps of the method are anticipated by Darcy et al., the amount of liquid fuel produced is also anticipated.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuetzle et al. (US 2010/0175320 A1, published 07/15/2010, PTO-892).
Schuetzle et al. teaches a system and apparatus is provided that maximizes mass and energy conversion efficiencies in an integrated thermochemical process for the conversion of fossil fuel or renewable biomass to synthesis gas. A clean synthesis gas stream is introduced into a catalytic reactor that utilizes specially formulated catalysts to generate liquid fuel from CO and H2 while concentrating CH4 and other combustible, but non-reactive gases in the syngas product stream. The methane rich stream is introduced into an engine for the production of electricity and heat while the unreacted CO and H2 can be recycled to produce additional liquid fuel. Excess heat can be used for other co-located processes and facilities (see Abstract). As seen schematically in FIG. 2 (shown below), the system for producing liquid materials and combustible gas for the generation of electricity and heat has several subsystems of processes. The liquid production subsystem 12 can produce different liquid materials from a source of syngas depending on the selection of the reactor catalysts and reaction conditions. The syngas production subsystem 14 preferably has a syngas generator 16 that processes fuel 18 to produce a stream 20 of synthesis gas. Syngas can be generated from a wide variety of carbonaceous fuel sources 18 including petroleum waste products, coal, wood, straw, waste tires, natural gas, landfill gas, or any other carbon containing matter. Controlled amounts of steam and oxygen are introduced to produce two sets of reactions. The first reaction is a partial oxidation of the fuel 18 that produces additional heat required for the second set of reactions (pyrolysis) which are endothermic. As a result, virtually all of the organic material is gasified into primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen and the inorganic material is converted to slag. A stream of syngas with a generally consistent composition can improve the
PNG
media_image2.png
545
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
conversion efficiency in the reactors 28. Hydrogen generator 24 or other source of hydrogen gas provides hydrogen gas to the stream of syngas 20 as determined by the gas analyzer 22. In the preferred embodiment of the invention, hydrogen can be generated from electrolysis of H2O and fed into the feed syngas 30. High temperature electrolysis for the production of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas takes advantage of the waste heat of the syngas generator or other heat sources in the system. In another embodiment, hydrogen rich gas can also be generated from natural gas by steam reforming or from other emerging methods of production. The pressurized feed syngas and recycle gas streams 30 are fed into at least one synthesis reactor 28 or a series of reactors as shown in FIG. 2. Each synthesis reactor 28 contains a catalyst or multiple layered catalysts chosen to synthesize the desired liquid product from the syngas fed into the reactor. Synthesis may include the generation of gas species that are not catalytically reactive including CO2 and CH4 and other gaseous hydrocarbons. These gases may help increase the energy content of the product gas stream which is useful for electricity generation. They should not greatly impact synthesis when they are recycled to the reactor 28. After passing though the catalysts in reactors 28, the outlet stream of gaseous products 36 is directed to the gas/liquid separator 38. The gas-liquid separator 38 is preferably a condenser but may be any other gas-liquid separator known in the art. Once liquid compounds 40 are separated, the product and un-reacted gases are split into two gas streams, the recycle gas 32 and purge gas 42. The recycle gas 32 is mixed with feed syngas 30 from a syngas generator 16 and then recycled through the catalyst, resulting in additional CO and H2 conversion to liquid product 40. The remaining gases 36 emerging from the gas/liquid separator 38 are preferably recycled for several cycles by compressing the gas stream with compressor 34 as needed to approximately match the pressure of the syngas feed stream 30 entering the reactors 28. Valve 44 can be used to direct gas that has been cycled through the reactors 28 several times to an exit line feed of purge gas 42. It will be seen that the cycling of gases through the reactor effectively concentrates some of the useful gases such as methane that are produced by the process or are present in the syngas feed 30. Gas products 42 can be burned as a source of heat, electrical generation, or can be processed further as an additional feedstock for other chemical production. The stream of purge gas 42 can be divided and a portion 46 of the gas can be used to supply process energy for the syngas generator. Syngas exits the syngas generator 16 and may be combined with a quantity of hydrogen gas from a hydrogen generator 24. In this embodiment, the hydrogen generator 24 is an electrolysis generator that utilizes process electricity 68 (see 0039-0085).
Regarding instant claim 1, the syngas generator 16, corresponding to the instant biomass gasifier, is fed with carbonaceous feedstock to make syngas 20, corresponding to the instant first product stream. Water is fed to a hydrogen generator 24, corresponding to the instant water electrolyzer, to generate hydrogen gas, corresponding to the instant second stream, and oxygen gas, corresponding to the instant third product stream, and is mixed with the syngas 20 to form syngas 30, corresponding to the instant first feed stream. Syngas 30 is directed to a reactor 28, corresponding to the instant liquid fuel production reactor, to produce liquid product 40, corresponding to the instant liquid fuel product.
Regarding instant claims 2, 5, and 6, the syngas produced includes CO, H2, CO2, and CH4, corresponding to the instant combustible gas, which are concentrated to purge gas stream 42 and used for the generation of heat, electricity, or are processed as an additional feedstock (see 0075 and FIG. 2). The hydrogen generator 24, corresponding to the instant electrolyzer, is an electrolysis generator that utilizes process electricity 68, corresponding to electricity produced by the instant combustible gas stream.
Regarding instant claim 4, liquid product 40, corresponding to the instant liquid fuel product, is produced.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 4 “wherein combination of the second product stream with the first product stream increases the amount of liquid fuels produced, as compared to a process where only the first product stream is fed into the liquid fuel production reactor, by an amount ranging from 10 percent by volume to 100 percent by volume”, the amount of liquid fuel produced would necessarily flow from the method to produce the liquid fuel. Therefore, since the active steps of the method are anticipated by Schuetzle et al., the amount of liquid fuel produced is also anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuetzle et al. (US 2010/0175320 A1, published 07/15/2010, PTO-892) in view of Rojey et al. (US2007/0131909 A1, published 06/14/2007, PTO-892).
The teachings of Schuetzle et al. were discussed above.
The teachings of Schuetzle et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Schuetzle et al. does not teach wherein the third product stream is fed to the biomass gasifier as an oxidant.
Rojey et al. teaches a process for the production of synthesis gas starting from a heavy carbon containing material such as carbon or lignite, heavy petroleum residues or biomass, in particular wood or vegetable waste. The invention therefore is not tied to a particular technique of electrolysis or gasification but to the synergy provided by the combination of these techniques when it is applied to the POX gasification of heavy carbon-containing materials. The synthesis gas that is obtained makes it possible to produce, according to various known processes for chemical conversion, paraffinic or olefinic hydrocarbons, which are bases of high-quality liquid fuels (see 0001). The invention proposes a process for the production of a synthesis gas SG that has an H2/CO ratio of between 1.9 and 2.3 starting from a carbon-containing material that is relatively low in hydrogen, water and electrical energy, in which: an electrolysis of the water is carried out for producing, on the one hand, oxygen, and, on the other hand, hydrogen; a current CF that comprises at least the majority of the carbon that is contained in the carbon-containing material CF is subject to a partial oxidation POX with oxygen that is essentially pure and is produced by electrolysis, at least a portion of the hydrogen that is produced by electrolysis is added to the current CF upstream and/or downstream from the partial oxidation POX in such a quantity that the H2/CO ratio of the final synthesis gas SG is between 1.9 and 2.3, whereby the process upstream from the POX comprises a stage DRY for drying said carbon-containing material, whereby the degree of drying during the drying stage is determined so that the electrolysis oxygen that is used in the POX stage and the added electrolysis hydrogen are in an O2/H2 molar ratio of between 0.45 and 0.55. Thus, the electrolysis provides both oxygen for gasification and input hydrogen for reaching a suitable H2/CO ratio. The electrical energy can be produced by various sources. It can be of nuclear or renewable origin (of solar, hydroelectric or eolian origin) and therefore typically does not emit CO2 or other gases with greenhouse effect.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schuetzle et al. with the teachings of Rojey et al. by feeding the oxygen produced by the electrolyzer, as taught by Schuetzle et al. to the gasifier, as taught by Rojey et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schuetzle et al. with the teachings of Rojey et al. because, as taught by Rojey et al., feeding the oxygen produced by the electrolyzer to the gasification makes it possible to produce, according to various known processes for chemical conversion, paraffinic or olefinic hydrocarbons, which are bases of high-quality liquid fuels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rojey et al. shows a successful example of the processes are combined.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 7 “wherein feeding the third product stream to the biomass gasifier increases the amount of liquid fuels produced, as compared to a process where the third product stream is not feed to the biomass gasifier, by an amount ranging from 10 percent by volume to 100 percent by volume”, the amount of liquid fuel produced would necessarily flow from the method to produce the liquid fuel. Therefore, since the active steps of the method are found to be obvious over Schuetzle et al. in view of Rojey et al., the amount of liquid fuel produced is also obvious.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuetzle et al. (US 2010/0175320 A1, published 07/15/2010, PTO-892) in view of Jensen et al. (NPL, published 2003, PTO-892).
The teachings of Schuetzle et al. were discussed above.
The teachings of Schuetzle et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Schuetzle et al. does not teach generating synthesis gas using a non-thermochemical process to provide a second product stream as required by instant claim 8 and wherein the process further comprises feeding water into an electrolyzer to provide a fourth product stream comprising oxygen as required by instant claim 10.
Jensen et al. teaches solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) used in electrolysis mode, called Solid Oxide Electrolyzer Cells (SOEC), have the potential to become an efficient and cost-effective way to solve the conversion problem. Because the water splitting process is endothermic, the electricity needed for electrolysis, can be significantly reduced, if the formation of hydrogen is taking place at high temperatures (1000°C). The electric energy need is reduced because the unavoidable joule heat of an electrolysis cell is utilized in the water (steam) splitting process at high temperature. If heat is available from sources such as heat of geothermal (e.g. on Island), solar or nuclear origin, this will further reduce the electric energy necessary to produce a Nm3 (a cubic meter at 0°C and 1 atm.) of hydrogen. All heat sources with temperatures above 100°C (the boiling point of water) are beneficial as electric energy for steam raising will be saved and the heat dissipation from the high temperature electrolyzer will be minimized the more the higher the temperature is of the surrounding gas. The consumption of electricity may be reduced further if steam of a temperature higher than the operation temperature of the electrolyzer is available. Also, the energy losses due to the sluggishness of the electrochemical reactions are in principle the lower, the higher the temperature is. This principle seems to a large degree realized in practice through the significant improvements of the SOFC technology due to the extensive international development efforts. Thus, SOEC is probably more efficient than the already commercialized low temperature electrolyzers, and today’s SOFC should be tested in the SOEC mode in order to assess the commercial potential of the technology in this application. Furthermore, the SOEC has the potential of splitting carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen. This means that electrolysis of a mixture of steam and carbon dioxide results in a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, also called synthesis gas or short: syngas. A number of other energy carriers may be produced from syngas. The two simplest are methanol and methane. The latter, CH4, is the main constituent in natural gas (see Introduction).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schuetzle et al. with the teachings of Jensen et al. by co-electrolyzing water and carbon dioxide, as taught by Jensen et al. in the method, as taught by Schuetzle et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Schuetzle et al. with the teachings of Jensen et al. because, as taught by Jensen et al., the consumption of electricity may be reduced. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the feedstocks of carbon dioxide and water are highly available and the process is thermodynamically efficient.
Regarding the limitation of instant claim 9 “wherein there is an amount of liquid fuels produced, and wherein combination of the second product stream with the first product stream increases the amount of liquid fuels produced, as compared to a process where only the first product stream is fed into the liquid fuel production reactor, by an amount ranging from 10 percent by volume to 100 percent by volume”, the amount of liquid fuel produced would necessarily flow from the method to produce the liquid fuel. Therefore, since the active steps of the method are found to be obvious over Schuetzle et al. in view of Jensen et al., the amount of liquid fuel produced is also obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-5906. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/KRISTEN W BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/SCARLETT Y GOON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights