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Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/17/2026.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (US 20060137579 A1) in view of Suda et al. (US 2010/0024297).
With respect to claim 1, Fujimura teaches a fluidized bed reactor (Figure 3, 11) configured to react a fuel in a fluidized bed of bed solids (as illustrated), the reactor comprising:
a container (11) configured to hold the bed of bed solids (as illustrated);
a wall (Figure 3, not numbered) separating at least a gas phase above the bed in the container (11) into a volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) and a combustion stage (13), the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) including:
a fuel inlet/(waste inlet) configured to receive the fuel/(waste);
a LowOx gas/(steam or inert gas) inlet disposed at a first portion of a bottom of the container (11) (para. [0021]) (as illustrated in Figure 3);
a LowOx gas supply/(booster (20)) configured to supply an inert and/or less-oxidizing gas/(CO2) to the LowOx gas inlet (para. [0050]) to fluidize the bed of bed solids to yield a first fluidized bed and volatilize the fuel to yield:
a volatiles stream/(produced gas) comprising a syngas/(fuel gas) (para. [0049]) and a char/dust stream (para. [0049]);
a volatiles stream outlet/(outlet at top of chamber (12)) configured to convey the volatiles stream out of the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) (as illustrated);
a syngas outlet/(fuel gas) coupled to the volatiles stream outlet/(outlet at top of chamber (12)) and configured to extract the syngas/(fuel gas) from the reactor (11);
the combustion stage (13) including:
an oxidant inlet (para. [0021]) disposed at a second portion of the bottom of the container (11) (as illustrated in Figure 3) (para. [0010], [0021]);
a HiOx gas supply configured to supply the oxidant inlet with a gas that is more oxidizing than that supplied by the LowOx gas supply (para. [0021]) (as illustrated), the HiOx gas supply and oxidant inlet configured to fluidize the bed of bed solids to yield a second fluidized bed and combust the char stream to yield an exhaust/combustion gas (para. [0021]);
an exhaust/combustion gas outlet/(outlet of chamber (13)) configured to convey the exhaust/combustion gas out of the combustion stage (13);
an opening (illustrated within the solids bed below the vertical wall separating the combustion chamber (13) from the gasification chamber (12)) through and/or below the wall and below a surface of the at least one of the fluidized beds, the opening configured to provide for a flow of the char stream and bed solids between the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) and the combustion stage (13) (as illustrated).
Fujimura fails to teach providing a volatiles pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) and
a combustion pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the combustion stage (13); and
a controller coupled to the pressure gauges and the means to control gas flow, the controller configured to control a residence time of the fuel in the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (1)) via control of a pressure difference (P1-P2) between the stages.
Suda teaches a fluidized bed furnace (107) (Figures 4-5) comprising a volatiles pressure gauge (P1) configured to measure pressure within the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (113)) and a combustion pressure gauge (P2) configured to measure pressure within the combustion stage (112) (para. [0027], [0087]); a means/damper to control gas flow into/out of at least one stage (para. [0087]); and
a controller (121 & 124) coupled to the pressure gauges (P1 & P2) and the means/damper to control gas flow, the controller configured to control a residence time of the fuel in the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (1)) via control of a pressure difference (P1-P2) between the stages (para. [0027]) in order to enhance and control the gasification efficiency in the fluidized bed gasification furnace.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the fluidized bed of Fujimura comprise a volatiles pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) and a combustion pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the combustion stage (13); and a controller coupled to the pressure gauges and the means to control gas flow, the controller configured to control a residence time of the fuel in the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (1)) via control of a pressure difference (P1-P2) between the stages, as taught by Suda, in order to control and enhance the gasification efficiency in the fluidized bed gasification furnace.
Regarding limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to a manner of operating a disclosed device, neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon (i.e. “bubbling”, lowOx gas, an inert and/or less-oxidizing gas) further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
With respect to claim 2, Fujimura teaches a heat exchanger/(waste heat boiler & filter (17 & 19)) coupled to the exhaust/combustion gas outlet (as illustrated in Figure 3) and LowOx gas supply/steam, the heat exchanger/(boiler & filter (17 & 19)) configured to transfer heat from the exhaust/combustion gas to the inert and/or less-oxidizing gas/CO2 prior to the LowOx gas inlet (para. [0050], [0057]).
With respect to claim 3, Suda further teaches wherein the controller (121 & 124) is further configured to control a pressure drop (Pd1-Pd2) across at least one of the LowOx gas inlet and the oxidant inlet - Suda is concerned with controlling the pressure difference between the combustion chamber (2) and the volatilization/gasification chamber (1) (para. [0035], [0094], [0097]), which would indirectly translate into controlling and managing the pressure drop (Pd1-Pd2) across at least one of the LowOx gas inlet and the oxidant inlet (para. [0027], [0035], [0087], [0094], [0097]).
With respect to claim 4, Suda teaches wherein the controller (121 & 124) is further configured to control a difference in pressure between a bottom of the fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the fluidized bed – Suda is concerned with controlling the pressure difference between the combustion chamber (2) and the volatilization/gasification chamber (1) (para. [0035], [0094], [0097]), which would indirectly translate into controlling and managing the pressure difference between a bottom of the fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the fluidized bed, and into controlling residence time.
With respect to claim 5, Suda further teaches wherein the controller (121 & 124) is further configured to control at least one of:
a pressure difference between a bottom of the first fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the first fluidized bed – Suda is concerned with controlling the pressure difference between the combustion chamber (2) and the volatilization/gasification chamber (1) (para. [0035], [0094], [0097]), which would indirectly translate into controlling and managing the pressure difference between a bottom of the first fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the first fluidized bed, and into controlling residence time; and
a pressure difference between a bottom of the second fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the second fluidized bed – Suda is concerned with controlling the pressure difference between the combustion chamber (2) and the volatilization/gasification chamber (1) (para. [0035], [0094], [0097]), which would indirectly translate into controlling and managing the pressure difference between a bottom of the second fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the second fluidized bed, and into controlling residence time.
With respect to claim 8, Fujimura teaches wherein a separation reactor (14 & 15) comprising the syngas/(fuel gas) outlet and configured to separate out the syngas/(fuel gas) from the volatiles/(produced gas) stream (as illustrated).
With respect to claim 9, Fujimura teaches wherein the separation reactor (15) is further configured to cool the volatiles/(produced gas) stream (para. [0049]).
With respect to claim 10, Fujimura teaches wherein the separation reactor (14 & 15) comprises a scrubber (15) (as illustrated) (para. [0049]).
With respect to claim 11, Suda further teaches wherein the controller (121 & 124) is further configured to control:
a pressure drop (Pd1-Pd2) across at least one of the LowOx gas inlet and the oxidant inlet - Suda is concerned with controlling the pressure difference between the combustion chamber (2) and the volatilization/gasification chamber (1) (para. [0035], [0094], [0097]), which would indirectly translate into controlling and managing the pressure drop (Pd1-Pd2) across at least one of the LowOx gas inlet and the oxidant inlet (para. [0027], [0035], [0087], [0094], [0097]); and
a difference in pressure between a bottom of the fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the fluidized bed – Suda is concerned with controlling the pressure difference between the combustion chamber (2) and the volatilization/gasification chamber (1) (para. [0035], [0094], [0097]), which would indirectly translate into controlling and managing the pressure difference between a bottom of the fluidized bed proximate to the LowOx gas inlet and the pressure above the fluidized bed, and into controlling residence time.
With respect to claim 12, Fujimura teaches wherein the separation reactor (14 & 15) comprises a heat exchanger/cooler (15) (as illustrated) (para. [0049]).
With respect to claim 14, Fujimura teaches wherein the separation reactor (14 & 15) is further configured to separate a condensed species/(acid gas) from a more volatile species/(produced fuel gas) (via scrubber (15)) (para. [0049]).
With respect to claim 15, Fujimura teaches wherein the wall/(wall within the fluidized bed) (Figure 3) is horizontally disposed away from a transition between the LowOx gas inlet/(inlets below volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (12)) and the oxidant inlet/(inlets below combustion chamber (13)) by an extension length (as illustrated).
With respect to claim 16, Suda further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the pressure difference using closed-loop control (para. [0027], [0035], [0087], [0094], [0097]).
Claims 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (US 20060137579 A1) in view of Suda et al. (US 2010/0024297), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wormer (US 4,823,712).
With respect to claims 6-7, modified Fujimura discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach wherein the bed solids have a mean particle diameter that is at least 0.4mm, and at least 0.6mm. Wormer teaches a fluidized bed reactor, similar to that of Fujimura (as illustrated in Figure 11), comprising bed solids having a maximum particle diameter of two inches, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of “at least 0.4mm” and “at least 0.6mm” in order to prevent clogging (col. 20, lines 66-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the bed particles of modified Fujimura comprise a mean particle diameter that is at least 0.4mm and at least 0.6mm, as taught by Wormer, in order to prevent clogging.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (US 20060137579 A1) in view of Suda et al. (US 2010/0024297), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of CN 1330700 A (hereinafter CN’700 – translation attached and relied upon below).
With respect to claim 13, Fujimura discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the separation reactor (14 & 15) is further configured to separate a residual stream/(dust) having a fuel value from the volatiles/(produced gas) stream, and the reactor (14 & 15) further comprises a residual stream outlet/(stream exiting the bottom of separation reactor (14)) configured to deliver the residual stream/dust from the separation reactor (14) (as illustrated) (para. [0049]). Fujimura as modified fails to teach delivering the residual stream/dust to the combustion stage to combust the residual stream having the fuel value. CN’700 teaches a fluidized bed reactor (Figure 10), comprising:
a container (2) configured to hold the bed of bed solids (21) (as illustrated);
a wall (not numbered) separating at least a gas phase above the bed in the container (11) into a volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (305)) and a combustion stage (304), the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (305)) generates a product gas, that is sent to a dust collector (3) for separating the product gas from dust, wherein the dust is then sent to the combustion stage (306) (as illustrated) in order to recycle material for further conversion and to benefit from their fuel value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to transfer the dust separated in modified Fujimura to the combustion stage, as taught by CN’700, in order to recycle material for further conversion and to benefit from their fuel value.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (US 20060137579 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Fujimura teaches a fuel stream processing system/apparatus comprising:
a pretreatment reactor (12) including:
a reaction zone/(gasification chamber (12)) (Figure 3) configured to react a fuel stream/(waste) with an inlet gas/(steam or inert gas) (as illustrated);
a LowOx gas inlet/(steam or inert gas) inlet configured to deliver an inert and/or less-oxidizing gas into the reaction zone/(gasification chamber (12)) (as illustrated) (para. [0021]);
a fuel inlet/(waste inlet) configured to receive a fuel supply/(waste) and deliver the fuel supply/(waste) to the reaction zone/(gasification chamber (12)) (as illustrated);
a volatiles stream outlet/(outlet at top of chamber (12)) configured to convey a volatiles stream/(produced gas) out of the reaction zone/(gasification chamber (12)) (para. [0049]); and
a char stream outlet/(space near upper divider wall within container (11)) (as illustrated) configured to convey a char stream out of the reaction zone/(gasification chamber (12)) (para. [0048]);
a separation reactor (14 & 15) comprising:
a volatiles stream inlet (line entering (14)) fluidically coupled to the volatiles stream/(produced gas) outlet (as illustrated), and configured to receive the volatiles stream/(produced gas) from the pretreatment reactor (12) (as illustrated);
a volatiles heat exchanger (15) configured to cool the volatiles stream/(produced fuel gas) into at least one condensed species/(acid gas and tar) and a residual stream/(fuel gas) (para. [0049]); and
a phase separator/(baffles within scrubber (15)) configured to separate the condensed species/(acid gas and tar) from the residual stream/(fuel gas); and
a residual stream/(fuel gas) outlet (at the top of heat-exchanger (15)) configured to convey the residual stream/(fuel gas) out of the separation reactor (14 & 15); and
a combustion reactor (13) comprising:
a combustion zone (within char bed) (para. [0048]);
an oxidant/(oxygen) inlet (at the bottom of the char bed) (as illustrated) configured to deliver a gas that is more oxidizing than that delivered by the LowOx gas inlet to the combustion zone (12);
a char stream inlet/(space near lower divider wall) coupled to the char stream outlet/(space near upper divider wall) of the pretreatment reactor (12)
and configured to convey the char stream into the combustion zone (13) (para. [0048]);
and
an exhaust outlet/(combustion gas outlet at the top of chamber (13)) configured to convey an exhaust from the combustion of the oxidant, char stream, residual stream out of the combustion zone (13) (as illustrated).
Fujimura teaches wherein a portion of the residual stream/(fuel gas) is used in combustion furnace (22) (para. [0069]), and teaches wherein the produced gas discharged from the separation reactor (14 & 15) is utilized as a fuel gas or the like (para. [0065]) in order to serve as supplemental fuel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide a residual stream/(fuel gas) inlet coupled to the residual stream outlet/(fuel gas) of the separation reactor (14 & 15) and configured to deliver at least a portion of the residual stream/(fuel gas) into the combustion zone (13) in order to assist in bringing the combustion zone to reaction temperature at startup and to serve as supplemental fuel.
Therefore, an exhaust outlet/(combustion gas outlet at the top of chamber (13)) would be configured to convey an exhaust/(combustion gas) from the combustion of the oxidant/oxygen, char stream, residual stream/(supplemental fuel gas) out of the combustion zone (13) (as illustrated).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12018835 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The recited limitations of instant claims 1 and 20 are encompassed in claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12018835 B2.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 in view of Suda et al. (US 2010/0024297).
The recited limitations of instant claim 1 are encompassed in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 except for the following:
U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 fails to teach providing a volatiles pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber and a combustion pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the combustion stage; and a controller coupled to the pressure gauges and the means to control gas flow, the controller configured to control a residence time of the fuel in the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber) via control of a pressure difference (P1-P2) between the stages.
Suda teaches a fluidized bed furnace (107) (Figures 4-5) comprising a volatiles pressure gauge (P1) configured to measure pressure within the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (113)) and a combustion pressure gauge (P2) configured to measure pressure within the combustion stage (112) (para. [0027], [0087]); a means/damper to control gas flow into/out of at least one stage (para. [0087]); and
a controller (121 & 124) coupled to the pressure gauges (P1 & P2) and the means/damper to control gas flow, the controller configured to control a residence time of the fuel in the volatilization stage/(gasification chamber (1)) via control of a pressure difference (P1-P2) between the stages (para. [0027]) in order to enhance and control the gasification efficiency in the fluidized bed gasification furnace.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the fluidized bed of U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 comprise a volatiles pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the volatilization stage and a combustion pressure gauge configured to measure pressure within the combustion stage; and a controller coupled to the pressure gauges and the means to control gas flow, the controller configured to control a residence time of the fuel in the volatilization stage via control of a pressure difference (P1-P2) between the stages, as taught by Suda, in order to control and enhance the gasification efficiency in the fluidized bed gasification furnace.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 in view of Fujimura et al. (US 20060137579 A1).
The recited limitations of instant claim 20 are encompassed in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2, except for the following:
U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 fails to teach providing a residual stream inlet coupled to the residual stream outlet of the separation reactor and configured to deliver at least a portion of the residual stream into the combustion zone.
Fujimura teaches wherein a portion of the residual stream/(fuel gas) is used in combustion furnace (22) (para. [0069]), and teaches wherein the produced gas discharged from the separation reactor (14 & 15) is utilized as a fuel gas or the like (para. [0065]) in order to serve as supplemental fuel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide a residual stream/(fuel gas) inlet coupled to the residual stream outlet/(fuel gas) of the separation reactor in U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 and configured to deliver at least a portion of the residual stream into the combustion zone in order to assist in bringing the combustion zone to reaction temperature at startup and to serve as supplemental fuel.
Therefore, U.S. Patent No. 12440818 B2 in view of Fujimura would teach an exhaust outlet that would be configured to convey an exhaust from the combustion of the oxidant/oxygen, char stream, residual stream/(supplemental fuel gas) out of the combustion zone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 3/15/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725