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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a cooling assembly” in claim 1, 9 and 12 is understood to be any art recognized heat exchanger;
“a work extraction mechanism” in claim 1, 9 and 12 is understood to be a turbo-expander or a condensing turbine (see ¶ 0014, 0019 of the specification);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recites “a work extraction mechanism fluidly coupled to the cooling assembly to condense the carbon dioxide from the stream into a solid form by work extraction and in a manner facilitating a discouraging of surface accretion within the system” and claim 12 recites “a work extraction mechanism in a manner facilitating a discouraging to surface accretion within the system.”
The specification fails to reasonably enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In particular, the claim requires that the work extraction mechanism not only condense carbon dioxide into a solid form by work extraction, but also do so “in a manner facilitating a discouraging of surface accretion within the system.” However, the specification discloses only a turbo-expander or a condensing turbine as the structure corresponding to the claimed work extraction mechanism (see ¶ 0014, 0019 of the specification). The specification does not describe, explain, or otherwise teach how a turbo-expander or a condensing turbine discourages surface accretion within the system, nor does it disclose any structural features, operating parameters, flow regimes, control strategies, surface treatments, or configurations by which such discouragement of surface accretion is achieved. The specification further lacks any discussion of mechanisms by which solid CO₂ formation would be managed to prevent or reduce accretion on internal system surfaces. Absent such disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the turbo-expander or a condensing turbine, as disclosed, performs the claimed function of discouraging surface accretion, nor how to design or operate the turbo-expander or a condensing turbine to achieve that result without undue experimentation. Merely stating a desired functional outcome, without corresponding enabling disclosure, does not satisfy the requirements of § 112(a). Accordingly, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed limitation requiring discouragement of surface accretion. See also MPEP § 2164.01(a) and § 2164.04.
Additionally, because the claim broadly recites a work extraction mechanism without structural or operational limitations tied to the alleged discouragement of surface accretion, the claim reads on any turbo-expander or condensing turbine that condenses carbon dioxide from a stream into a solid form by work extraction. As such, prior art that teaches a turbo-expander or a condensing turbine configured to condense carbon dioxide into a solid form by work extraction inherently meets the claimed limitation, regardless of whether the prior art expressly discusses surface accretion. The claimed “discouraging of surface accretion” is not supported by limiting structure in the specification and therefore does not impart patentable distinction.
Claims 2-8, 10, 11 and 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lissianski et al. (US 2015/0033792 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lissianski teaches a cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system comprising:
an exhaust line for channeling a gas stream (16), the gas stream (16) having an initial mean temperature (the initial temperature of stream 16 as introduced into system 10, ¶ 0024) and including carbon dioxide gas (¶ 0018; fig. 1, 2);
a cooling assembly (29, 24) fluidly coupled to the exhaust line (16) to bring a temperature of the stream (16) down to an initial cooling temperature between the initial mean temperature and a de- sublimation temperature for the carbon dioxide gas in the stream (¶ 0025-0028, 0039; fig. 1, 2); and
a work extraction mechanism (300/a multi-phase turbo expander 30) fluidly coupled to the cooling assembly to condense the carbon dioxide from the stream (16) into a solid form by work extraction and in a manner facilitating a discouraging of surface accretion within the system (see ¶ 0029; fig. 1, 2; See also the 112(a) rejection and examiner interpretation above).
In regard to claim 2, Lissianski teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the work extraction mechanism (30) is one of a dynamic mechanism (turbo expander is a dynamic mechanism) and a positive displacement mechanism (¶ 0029).
In regard to claim 3, Lissianski teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 2 wherein the dynamic mechanism is one of a condensing turbine and a turbo-expander (30) and the positive displacement mechanism is a piston (see ¶ 0029).
In regard to claim 5, Lissianski teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the cooling assembly (29, 24) comprises one of an air cooler and a chiller (see ¶ 0028).
In regard to claim 8, Lissianski teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 further comprising a separator (38) coupled to the work extraction mechanism (30) to divert solidified carbon dioxide (42) from the stream and provide a substantially carbon-free emission (40) for management (see ¶ 0031-0033, 0037-0038, 0045; fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 12, Lissianski teaches a method of cryogenic-based carbon capture from an exhaust gas stream in a system, the method comprising: channeling the exhaust gas stream (16) with an initial mean temperature (the initial temperature of stream 16 as introduced into system 10, ¶ 0024) to a cooling assembly of the system (heat exchangers 29) to bring a temperature thereof down to an initial cooling temperature between the initial mean temperature and a de-sublimation temperature for the carbon dioxide gas in the stream (¶ 0025-0028, 0039; fig. 1, 2); and
solidifying carbon dioxide from the stream (16) with a work extraction mechanism (300/a multi-phase turbo expander 30) in a manner facilitating a discouraging of surface accretion within the system (see ¶ 0029; fig. 1, 2; See also the 112(a) rejection and examiner interpretation above).
In regard to claim 13, Lissianski teaches the method of claim 12 further comprising compressing the stream (16) at a compressor (26) in advance of the channeling to the cooling assembly (29) (see fig. 1, 2; ¶ 0026-0027).
In regard to claim 14, Lissianski teaches the method of claim 13 wherein the initial cooling temperature of the stream is achieved with one of an air cooler and a chiller (see ¶ 0028).
In regard to claim 15, Lissianski teaches the method of claim 13 wherein the compressor (26) is a first compressor (see fig. 1, 2) the method further comprises directing an emission of the stream (stream 40/501) from a separator (38) coupled to the work extraction mechanism (30) to a second compressor (44) for one of facilitating cooling at the cooling assembly (29) and facilitating cooling at another cooling assembly (24) fluidly coupled to the work extraction mechanism (30) (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 16, Lissianski teaches the method of claim 15 wherein the second compressor (44/46) is provided in a unitary form with the work extraction mechanism (turbo expander 30) (see ¶ 0029; fig. 1, 2).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lockwood et al. (US 2011/0302955 A1).
In regard to claim 9, fig, 1, 6 of Lockwood teaches an industrial site (¶ 0053) complex comprising: a process facility for producing an exhaust gas (24) at an initial mean temperature (the initial temperature of 24), the gas including carbon dioxide (Abstract); a cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system fluidly coupled to the process facility for receiving the exhaust gas (24, 40) and further comprising:
a cooling assembly (109, 111) to bring a temperature of the stream (40) down to an initial cooling temperature between the initial mean temperature and a de-sublimation temperature for the carbon dioxide gas in the stream (see fig. 6; ¶ 0126); and
a work extraction mechanism ("expansion/Venturi" part 702) fluidly coupled to the cooling assembly (109, 111) to condense the carbon dioxide from the stream into a solid form (62) by work extraction and in a manner facilitating a discouraging of surface accretion within the system (¶ 0126-0130; fig. 6; See also the 112(a) rejection and examiner interpretation above).
In regard to claim 11, Lockwood teaches the industrial site complex of claim 9 further comprising a management location for obtaining the solid form of the carbon dioxide (62) for one of transport and local use (¶ 0095, 0178; fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lissianski et al. (US 2015/0033792 A1) in view of Reddy et al. (US 2016/0327337 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Lissianski teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 further comprising a compressor (26) coupled to the exhaust gas line for compressing the stream (16) in advance of reaching the cooling assembly (29, 24) (¶ 0025-0028, 0036; fig. 1, 2), but does not explicitly teach compressing the stream to between about 3 bara and about 10 bara.
However, Reddy teaches a configuration and method of CO2 capture from a flue gas, wherein a flue gas (101) a compressor (blower BL-101) to generate a pressurized flue gas stream (102) at a pressure of 50-150 psia ≈ 3.45 bara to 10.3 bara (see ¶ 0027), the Pressurized flue gas stream (102) enters first precooler (E-101) in which refrigeration content of the cold, CO2 depleted flue gas (109) is used to cool the pressurized flue gas stream (102), thereby forming a cooled pressurized flue gas stream (103) (see ¶ 0027, 0036-0037; fig. 1A. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the compressor of Lissianski to operate within the range of 3 bara and about 10 bara, since Reddy teaches that gas compressors are conventionally operated at pressures overlapping the claimed range (i.e., 3.45 bara to 10.3 bara), and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select an appropriate operating pressure within the known range taught by Reddy to achieve desired system requirements (such as efficiency, safety, or downstream process compatibility), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP §2144.05.
In regard to claim 6, Lissianski teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein Lissianski teaches a moisture removal device (12) disposed upstream the cooling assembly, wherein the cooling assembly comprising an initial cooling (heat exchanger 29) to cool the stream to an initial cooling temperature and a second cooling assembly (heat exchanger 24) to further cool the stream to a second cooling temperature, but does not explicitly teach the first cooling assembly, the initial cooling temperature is above 0°C, a mechanical separator to remove water from the stream; a dryer to remove water from the stream and a second cooling assembly to bring the stream down to a working temperature between the initial cooling temperature and a de-sublimation temperature for carbon dioxide in the stream in advance of the stream reaching the work extraction mechanism.
However, Reddy teaches a configuration and method of CO2 capture from a flue gas, wherein a flue gas (101) a compressor (blower BL-101) to generate a pressurized flue gas stream (102) at a pressure of 50-150 psia ≈ 3.45 bara to 10.3 bara (see ¶ 0027), the Pressurized flue gas stream (102) enters first precooler (E-101) in which refrigeration content of the cold, CO2 depleted flue gas (109) is used to cool the pressurized flue gas stream (102), thereby forming a cooled pressurized flue gas stream (103) at a temperature above the freezing point of water (i.e., above 0° C.) (see ¶ 0024). Stream (103) is cooled and dried in (dryer D-101, which may be a glycol or other suitable gas dryer), wherein water (105) is removed from the cooled pressurized flue gas as stream, forming dry cooled flue gas (104), which enters a second precooler (E-102) to form a cooled dry flue gas (106), at a temperature of below 0° C. and above −100° C., more typically above −115° C (¶ 0024), and enters one of a series of desublimators (C-101 A-D) (see ¶ 0036-0037; fig. 1A. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lissianski by cooling the stream at initial cooling temperature is above 0°C and to further cooling the stream in the second cooling assembly to bring the stream down to a working temperature between the initial cooling temperature and a de-sublimation temperature, in view of the teachings of Reddy, in order to provide adequate cooling for the downstream CO2 separation by cooling the stream close to de-sublimation temperature of carbon dioxide. In addition, by positioning the mechanical separator/dryer between the first and second cooling assembly in order to reduce the water content and temperature of the stream before dehydration, thereby improving the mechanical separator/dryer efficiency, reducing equipment size and cost, and preventing water freezing in downstream cryogenic heat exchangers.
Note: that the structure of Reddy teaches a system (dryer D-101) that comprises both separator and dryer to remove water from the stream and also to dry the stream.
In regard to claim 7, Lissianski in view of Reddy teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 6 wherein the second cooling assembly is a recuperator (Lissianski heat exchanger 24) and the working temperature is between about -80°C and about -120°C (see Reddy ¶ 0024, wherein Reddy teaches cooling −100° C, as modified above in claim 6).
In regard to claim 17, Lissianski teaches the method of claim 12, wherein Lissianski further teaches extracting water (using moisture removal device 12) from the exhaust gas stream (16) at initial mean temperature (see ¶ 0023-0026; fig. 1, 2), but does not explicitly teach extracting water at the initial cooling temperature.
However, However, Reddy teaches a configuration and method of CO2 capture from a flue gas, wherein a flue gas (101) a compressor (blower BL-101) to generate a pressurized flue gas stream (102) at a pressure of 50-150 psia ≈ 3.45 bara to 10.3 bara (see ¶ 0027), the Pressurized flue gas stream (102) enters first precooler (E-101) in which refrigeration content of the cold, CO2 depleted flue gas (109) is used to cool the pressurized flue gas stream (102), thereby forming a cooled pressurized flue gas stream (103) at a temperature above the freezing point of water (i.e., above 0° C.) (see ¶ 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Lissianski by extracting the water from the stream at the initial cooling temperature, in view of the teachings of Reddy, in order to reduce the water content and temperature of the stream before dehydration, thereby improving the mechanical separator/dryer efficiency, reducing equipment size and cost, and preventing water freezing in downstream cryogenic heat exchangers.
In regard to claim 18, the modified Lissianski in view of Reddy teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the cooling assembly is a first cooling assembly (29), the method further comprising cooling the stream to a working temperature between the initial cooling temperature and a de-sublimation temperature for carbon dioxide in the stream at a second cooling assembly (24) in advance of the solidifying of the carbon dioxide (see Lissianski ¶ 0025-0028, 0039; and see also Reddy ¶ 0036-0037).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lockwood et al. (US 2011/0302955 A1) in view of Kaminsky et al. (US 2021/0063083 A1)
In regard to claim 10, Lockwood teaches the industrial site complex of claim 9, wherein Lockwood teaches the CO2-lean gas 46 is heated up in the cooling assembly (109, 111) and processed as an outgoing fluid (stream 48, and as residual flow 25), but does not explicitly teach a stack for release of the exhaust gas in a substantially carbon-free form. However, it is well known in the art that combustion-based industrial sites employ stacks to release treated flue gas to the atmosphere in compliance with environmental regulations and to ensure safe and efficient operation, and Kaminsky teaches a method and apparatus for liquefying a feed gas stream comprising natural gas and carbon dioxide, wherein the feed gas stream is cooled and liquefied (in heat exchangers 120, 130), and reduces the pressure of the stream at throttle 150 result in production of solid CO2 by product. The system further comprises a separation tank 160 to produce a fluid stream 203 and a fluid stream 102 comprising slurry of LNG liquid and frozen CO2. The fluid stream 203 (e.g., a primarily-gaseous fluid stream) produced at separation tank 160. As illustrated, fluid stream 203 may be used as a cooling fluid stream for heat exchanger 130 before being consumed at burner 270, wherein the burner 270 is a flaring device (¶ 0033, 0036, 0049, 0055; fig. 2A, 2B, 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lockwood to provide a stack to release a carbon-free exhaust gas, in view of the teachings of Kaminsky, for the purpose of in order to vent the remaining exhaust gas after CO₂ removal to manage emissions to meet permitted levels, since without such venting the process could not meet environmental standards.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lissianski et al. (US 2015/0033792 A1) in view of Baxter et al. (US 2020/0318900 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Lissianski the method of claim 12, wherein Lissianski teaches separating the solidified carbon dioxide (42, 54) from the stream (see Lissianski ¶ 0031, 0034), but does not explicitly teach liquifying the separated solidified carbon dioxide; and further directing the liquified carbon dioxide to one of a return to the cooling assembly, a routing to another cooling assembly coupled to the work extraction mechanism and a routing to a line for extraction of the carbon dioxide.
However, Baxter teaches a method and apparatus of separating a process fluid (40) wherein he process fluid stream (40) passes through a first exchanger (22) where it is cooled isobarically to about 20° C., resulting in a second process fluid stream (42/44) has a carbon dioxide content between 10 and 40 wt % is cooled isobarically across a second exchanger (14) to just above the temperature at which solids form, (−70° C), resulting in a mixed liquid stream (45) near but still above the freezing point of carbon dioxide is passed into a drum (12) and decreases the pressure of the stream (45) to about 10 bar, to form a first vapor stream (48) and a solid product stream (46). The solid product stream (46) is warmed and melted against refrigerant (62) in a heat exchanger (18) and pressurized in a pump (20), resulting in a liquid product stream (54), and the liquid product stream (54) is then warmed across the first exchanger (14), providing cooling for the incoming process fluid stream (40) (see fig. 3; ¶ 0025-0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Lissianski by liquifying the separated solidified carbon dioxide and directing the liquified carbon dioxide to the cooling assembly (e.g., to the cooling assembly 24 of Lissianski), in view of the teachings of Baxter, for the purpose of assisting in cooling process of the gas stream and help to improve the overall efficiency of the cooling assembly.
In regard to claim 20, the modified Lissianski in view of Baxter the method of claim 19 wherein Baxter teaches the directing is powered by a solid pump (20) that is selected from a group consisting of a solid pump that is discrete from the one of the cooling assembly (22) and the other cooling assembly (14) and a solid pump that is unitary with the one of the cooling assembly and the other cooling assembly (see Baxter fig. 3; ¶ 0025-0027, see also the rejection of claim 19 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (see the examiner 112(a) rejection and claim interpretation).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763