DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12) in the reply filed on 9/14/2025 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 13-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cryopump drive and whatever structure allegedly makes it configured to work at low temperatures, the stages, line ends routed to a bottom - must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because they have overlapping lines that make interpreting the drawings unnecessarily difficult. The drawings should be corrected with line jumps to show where overlapping lines do not fluidly connect and line dots to show where lines do fluidly connect. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “unpressurized liquid hydrogen” is indefinite since it is unclear what pressure is considered unpressurized. Inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require a particular pressure level, such is indeterminate as all fluids have a pressure. Further, the recitation appears contradictory to the disclosed invention as there is return of fluid to the primary inner tank and therefore there is fluid that has been pressurized therein.
The recitation, “low temperature” is indefinite for being a relative term. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what temperature is sufficient to meet the relative and patently indistinct term.
The recitation, “the pressure in the primary inner tank” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “cryogenic fluid” is inconsistent with the disclosure and the independent claim. The claim stores hydrogen and there is no other fluid supported as presently recited.
The recitation, “normal operation” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require any particular operations as the claim does not limit what must occur during the normal operation, nor is it even clear what is operating. However, it is understood that the at least one cryopump is surrounded by hydrogen during this phase.
The recitation, “a cryopump drive of the at least one cryopump is configured to work at low temperatures” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure makes the cryopump so configured and it is unclear what temperatures are included and excluded. The recitation, “low temperature” is indefinite for being a relative term. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what temperature is sufficient to meet the relative and patently indistinct term and it is unclear if this temperature must be the same temperature as the low temperature of claim 1.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “in response to a leak, the at least two check valves are adapted to allow hydraulic pressure equilibration and close a connection between…the primary inner tank and the secondary inner tank via the cryogenic connecting line.” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure the valves have that is able to be “in response” to a leak. The disclosure does not even use the term “response”. Further it is unclear what pressure or fluid relationship the check valves enforce between the tanks since if there is a leak from the primary inner tank, it is unclear how the check valves would operate to close and still perform pressure equilibration as claimed. The scope of the recitation is unclear and encompasses leak situations that are not supported or made clear by the specification. Further while the recitation identifies the valves as check valves, the lack of clarity as to what direction the valves stop and permit flow make it entirely unclear what structure is encompassed by the recitation. The disclosure appears to describe the valves as if they are fully controllable on/off valves and have no directional limitations.
The recitation, “between the two the primary inner tank and the secondary inner tank” is grammatically errant and illogical.
The recitation, “adjacent” is indefinite inasmuch as such is interpreted as requiring a particular distance as there is no way to determine the necessary distance to meet the limitation.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “the cryogenic connecting line only has, downstream of the at least check valves, line ends which are routed in a region of a respective one of the primary inner tank and the secondary inner tank to a bottom thereof.” is indefinite since the disclosure clearly shows that the connecting line has more than mere line ends and it is entirely unclear what the “only” excludes. Further the recitation is indefinite for reciting “at least check valves” which is not consistent with the previously recited at least two check valves of claim 3. Further the recitation is indefinite since the disclosure does not show that the connection line (27) is routed to a bottom of both inner tanks (see Figure).
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “the connecting line is independent of extraction devices of the at least two cryocontainers.” is indefinite as there is no way to tell what “independent” entails or encompasses and there is no way to discern what further structure the connecting line must have or must not have to meet the limitation. Further, it is unclear what features, parameters, or characteristics “independence” relates to. Further the recited extraction devices are indefinite as explained below and therefore it is unclear how the structure of the recited devices influences the interpretation of the term “independent”.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “increase pressure in the primary inner tank” is indefinite for improperly reintroduces pressure in the primary inner tank and it is unclear if it is the same or different pressure than the same recited pressure in claim 1.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “pressure reducer having a downstream pressure safety valve” is indefinite for being entirely inconsistent with the disclosure which shows a pressure reducer and a pressure safety valve are separate structures and the pressure reducer does not have the safety valve. Further, it is unclear what structure the pressure reducer must have as explained in the 112(f) section below.
The recitation, “for return…to the primary inner tank.” is further indefinite since there is nothing showing that the pressure safety valve provides return of fluid to the primary inner tank.
The recitation, “the gas” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 12, the recitation, “substantially the same” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what features, characteristics, structures are considered much less what structures are permitted to be different and for the systems to be considered “substantially the same”.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “extraction devices” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely reciting “extraction devices” does not define the scope of the structure thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “filling interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely reciting “filling interface” does not define the scope of the structure thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “pressure reducer” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely reciting “pressure reducer” does not define the scope of the structure thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the other claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drube (US 2021/0404604) in view of Emmer (US 6354088). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Drube teaches a multi-cryostorage system (see whole disclosure), comprising:
at least two cryocontainers (30, 6) for storing liquid hydrogen (para. 18, liquid hydrogen), the at least two cryocontainers (30, 6) being connected in hydraulic communication via a cryogenic connecting line (16, 22), the at least two cryocontainers (30, 6) including a primary storage system (at least 30) and at least one secondary storage system (6) having a secondary inner tank (8) and a secondary outer container (10);
a heat exchanger (58) operable to heat the hydrogen (para. 22); and
at least one cryopump (44), arranged in the primary inner tank (30), to supply the liquid hydrogen to the heat exchanger (58) for delivery to a consumer (para. 22, vehicle) at a pressure higher than a pressure in the primary storage system (at least 30) (due to pumping).
Drube does not appear to explicitly teach that the primary storage system comprises a primary inner tank and a primary outer container. However providing inner and outer tanks for provision of vacuum insulation is routine and ordinary as taught by Emmer. Emmer teaches a primary storage system (24) having a primary inner tank (Fig. 2, column 4, line 1-5, see inner tank) and a primary outer container (outer wall of 24) fed with fluid from a secondary tank (10) having a secondary inner tank (12) and a secondary outer container (16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the primary storage system (at least 30) of Drube to have a primary outer container and a primary inner tank for the purpose of reducing parasitic heat leak into the hydrogen therein.
In regard to claim 2, Drube teaches that the at least one cryopump (44) is fully surrounded by the liquid hydrogen (para. 21 “submerged”) during normal operation (para. 22 see operating).
In regard to claim 3, Drube teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (16, 22) has at least two check valves (18, 24, interpreted as valves that can perform the function of stopping a flow in at least one direction) adjacent to (interpreted as within some proximity to; see the identified valves are within some proximity to the identified tanks) the primary inner tank (inner tank of 30 as modified) and the secondary inner tank (8), and the at least two check valves (18, 24) are capable of permitting hydraulic pressure equilibrium (can provide pressure equilibrium) and are also capable of being closed (fully capable thereof).
In regard to claim 4, Drube teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (16, 22) has line ends (see ends of 16, 22), downstream of the at least two check valves (18, 24), one of the line ends is in a bottom region of the primary inner tank (inner tank of 30 as modified) and the secondary inner tank (8).
In regard to claim 5, Drube teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (16, 22) is independent (has no extraction lines).
In regard to claim 6, Drube teaches that the primary storage system (30) is operable to return a partial flow of warmed hydrogen (para. 27) that is extracted downstream of the heat exchanger (58), via a return line (104, 108) into the primary inner tank (inner tank of 30 as modified) in order to increase the pressure in the primary inner tank (inner tank of 30 as modified; para. 27).
In regard to claim 8, Drube teaches a buffer container (102) for warm hydrogen (therein) arranged between the at least one cryopump (44) and the consumer (vehicle, para. 22).
In regard to claim 11, Drube teaches that the secondary storage system (6) lacks a cryopump (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 12, Drube teaches that the secondary storage system (6) comprises same components as the primary storage system (30 as modified, see inner and outer walls are same vacuum walls), with an exception of having no cryopump (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drube (US 2021/0404604) in view of Emmer (US 6354088) and Bartlok (US 11415084).
Drube teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach a pressure reducer in the return line (104, 108) and downstream of the pressure reducer, the return line (104, 108) having a pressure safety valve also arranged in the return line (104, 108).
However, a pressure reducer and a pressure safety valve are routine and ordinary. Bartlok teaches a return line (106) having a pressure reducer (109) in the return line (106) and downstream of the pressure reducer (109) the return line (106) having a pressure safety valve (110) providing the ability to regulate the pressure returning to a primary inner tank (101) and provide safe venting if the pressure were to exceed safe limits. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the return line of Drube with the pressure reducer and the pressure safety valve of Bartlok for the purpose of permitting a controlled increase of the pressure added to the primary inner tank and permitting safe venting if the pressure exceeds safe limits.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drube (US 2021/0404604) in view of Emmer (US 6354088) and further in view of Weltmer (US 5329777). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Drube does not explicitly teach that the primary storage system (30) is fillable via a primary storage system filling interface, and the secondary storage system (6) is fillable via a secondary storage system filling interface. However, providing separate filling interfaces to a plurality of vessels is routine and ordinary. Weltmer teaches a primary storage system (12) is fillable via a primary storage system filling interface (30, 36), and the secondary storage system (14) is fillable via a secondary storage system filling interface (32, 36). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the primary storage system (30) and the secondary storage system (6) with separate filling interfaces for the purpose of providing greater flexibility in operation so as to be able fill each storage system as desired for the operation or situation at hand.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drube (US 2021/0404604) in view of Emmer (US 6354088) and further in view of Drube (US 6615861). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 3, Supposing, for any reason, that Drube is considered to not have the claimed two check valves. Drube (861) teaches it is routine to provide check valves (at least 86ab, see others as well) to separate vessels (50a, 50b). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Drube with check two check valves on the cryogenic connecting line (16, 22) to permit different pressures in the primary storage system (30) from the secondary storage system (6) and ensure that the desired flow direction is maintained.
In regard to claim 4, Drube teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (16, 22) has line ends (see ends of 16, 22), downstream of the at least two check valves (18, 24), one of the line ends is in a bottom region of the primary inner tank (inner tank of 30 as modified) and the secondary inner tank (8). It is further noted that Drube (861) teaches line ends near a bottom region for the purpose of accessing liquid.
In regard to claim 5, Drube teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (16, 22) is independent (has no extraction lines).
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of Fogelman (US 2007/0204908).
In regard to claim 1-2, Fogelman teaches a multi-cryostorage system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 4), comprising:
at least two cryocontainers (10, 50) for storing liquid hydrogen (para. 7, 30, liquid cryogen), the at least two cryocontainers (10, 50) being connected in hydraulic communication via a cryogenic connecting line (102), the at least two cryocontainers (10, 50) including a primary storage system (10) having a primary inner tank (inner tank of 10) and a primary outer tank (outer tank of 10) and at least one secondary storage system (50) having a secondary inner tank (inner tank of 50) and a secondary outer container (inner tank of 50);
a heat exchanger (22) operable to heat the hydrogen (para. 8); and
at least one cryopump (para. 37 pump), to supply the liquid hydrogen to the heat exchanger (58) for delivery to a consumer (para. 22, vehicle) at a pressure higher than a pressure in the primary storage system (at least 30) (due to pumping).
Fogelman does not appear to explicitly teach that the pump is arranged in the primary inner tank (inner tank of 10). However official notice is taken that providing a submerged pump is routine and ordinary. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pump of Fogelman to be within the primary inner tank (inner tank of 10) to easily provide fluid to the pump and to provide gainful cooling to the pump.
In regard to claim 3, Fogelman teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (102) has at least two check valves (46, 104) adjacent to the primary inner tank (of 10) and the secondary inner tank (of 50), and the at least two check valves (46, 104) are capable of permitting hydraulic pressure equilibrium (at least between two locations on line 102) and are also capable of being closed (see valves can close).
In regard to claim 4, Fogelman teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (102) has line ends (see ends of line near bottom of vessels), downstream of the at least check valves (46, 104), one of the line ends is in a bottom region of the primary inner tank (10).
In regard to claim 5, Fogelman teaches that the cryogenic connecting line (102) has no is independent of extraction lines (see figure 4).
In regard to claim 11, Fogelman teaches that the secondary storage system (50) lacks a cryopump (50 has no pump).
In regard to claim 12, Fogelman teaches that the secondary storage system (50) comprises same components as the primary storage system (10 as modified), with an exception of having no cryopump (50 has no pump).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
October 16, 2025
Prosecution Insights