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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 13 of the amended specification reads “anode gas diffusion layer 126e”, but should read “cathode [[anode]] gas diffusion layer 126e” (see below).
Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
116
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 line 4 should read “and carbon monoxide gas” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 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 limitations are: “the first electrochemical pumping stage … configured to receive a first gas mixture comprising hydrogen gas, electrochemically separate hydrogen gas from the first gas mixture to produce a second gas mixture, and output the second gas mixture to the second electrochemical pumping stage” in claim 1; and
“the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage … configured to receive the second gas mixture from the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage, electrochemically separate hydrogen gas from the second gas mixture to produce a third gas mixture, and output the third gas mixture” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, the limitation “the first electrochemical pumping stage…” is interpreted as “a plurality of first electrochemical cells, first input lines, and first output lines” as recited in para. 39, and the limitation “the second electrochemical pumping stage …” is interpreted as “a plurality of second electrochemical cells, second input lines, and second output lines” as recited in para. 46.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a use, rather than a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP § 2173.05(q)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 7-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanchet (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0001091 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchet teaches a multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump (“a multi-stage EHC [electrochemical hydrogen compressor]” para. 32 and see para. 28), comprising:
a first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage fluidly connected to a second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage (“multiple electrochemical cells 100 may be linked in series to form a multi-stage EHC” para. 32),
wherein the first electrochemical pumping stage comprises a plurality of first electrochemical cells (“each EHP may include … a plurality of electrochemical cells arranged in a stack” para. 36), a plurality of first input lines and first output lines (each electrochemical cell necessarily comprises an input and output line), and is configured to receive a first gas mixture comprising hydrogen gas (“the admixture of hydrogen gas and potential pollutants may be passed through an EHP 220, step 211.” para. 36 and Fig. 2a), electrochemically separate hydrogen gas from the first gas mixture to produce a second gas mixture (“Pollutants present in the gas admixture will be separated out and removed from EHP 220, step 221.” Id.), and output the second gas mixture to the second electrochemical pumping stage (“multiple electrochemical cells 100 may be linked in series to form a multi-stage EHC” para. 32), and
wherein the second electrochemical pumping stage comprises a plurality of second electrochemical cells (“each EHP may include … a plurality of electrochemical cells arranged in a stack” para. 36), a plurality of second input lines and second output lines (each electrochemical cell necessarily comprises an input and output line), and is configured to receive the second gas mixture from the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage (“multiple electrochemical cells 100 may be linked in series to form a multi-stage EHC” para. 32), electrochemically separate hydrogen gas from the second gas mixture to produce a third gas mixture (“Pollutants present in the gas admixture will be separated out and removed from EHP 220, step 221.” para. 36 and Fig. 2a), and output the third gas mixture (“the purified hydrogen collected at the cathode side of EHP 220 may be delivered to a hydrogen consumer 230.” Para. 37 and Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 5, Blanchet further teaches the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are fluidly connected to each other via a channel defined by bipolar plates (“Bipolar plates 150, 160 may … provide passages to the respective electrode surfaces for the hydrogen, and provide passages for the removal of the compressed hydrogen. … Bipolar plates 150, 160 may separate electrochemical cell 100 from the neighboring cells in an electrochemical stack (not shown).” para. 32 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Blanchet anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Blanchet further teaches the second gas mixture has a greater proportion of hydrogen gas compared to the first gas mixture, and the third gas mixture has a greater proportion of hydrogen gas compared to the second gas mixture (“an EHP or EHC may employ a proton conducting membrane as part of an electrochemical cell, which may allow only hydrogen ions and water to pass through. Other compounds, e.g., pollutants, may be physically prevented from passing through the membrane.” para. 34 i.e., each EHC stage is configured to increase the proportion of hydrogen gas in the product relative to the feed, see also para. 36).
Regarding claim 8, Blanchet anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Blanchet further teaches the first gas mixture is made up of hydrogen gas and one or more other types of gas (“the admixture of hydrogen gas and potential pollutants may be passed through an EHP 220,” para. 36 and Fig. 2), wherein the one or more other types of gas are selected from the group consisting of: nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide gas, helium gas, argon gas, carbon monoxide gas (para. 4 and see below).
As currently drafted, the limitation “the first gas mixture is made up of hydrogen gas and one or more other types of gas wherein the one or more other types of gas are selected from the group consisting of: nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide gas, helium gas, argon gas, carbon monoxide gas” is drawn to the material operated on by the multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an apparatus limited by the material it works upon must be capable of working on the recited material (MPEP § 2115).
In the instant case, Blanchet teaches the anode(s) of the system comprise platinum (para. 31) and the membrane(s) are permselective for protons (para. 33). The instant specification indicates that an electrochemical cell comprising a platinum anode and a membrane permselective for protons is capable of working on gas mixtures comprising nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide gas, helium gas, argon gas, and/or carbon monoxide gas (paras. 6-8) It is therefore considered that the system of Blanchet is necessarily capable of working on a first gas mixture made up of hydrogen and at least one of nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide gas, helium gas, argon gas, and carbon monoxide gas.
Blanchet therefore anticipates the limitation “wherein the one or more other types of gas are selected from the group consisting of: nitrogen gas, carbon dioxide gas, helium gas, argon gas, and carbon monoxide gas”.
Regarding claim 9, Blanchet anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Blanchet further teaches the hydrogen gas comprises at least protium (“hydrogen gas” abstract and e.g., “hydrogen ions” para. 36).
Regarding claim 15, Blanchet anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Blanchet further teaches using the multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump to pump hydrogen gas (“producing hydrogen gas … transferring a quantity of a hydrogen gas mixture through an electrochemical hydrogen pump” abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0001091 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Blanchet anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Blanchet does not explicitly teach one or more further electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages fluidly connected in series to the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages.
However, Blanchet further teaches that any suitable number of electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages may be fluidly connected in series (“any suitable number of EHPs may be included. For example, a plurality of EHPs could be arranged in parallel or in series” para. 36).
As Blanchet teaches an electrochemical hydrogen pump for the purpose of purifying a hydrogen feed, Blanchet is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Blanchet, such that it comprises one or more further electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages fluidly connected in series to the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Blanchet suggests using more than two electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages connected in series, and to achieve the predictable benefit of further purifying/compressing the hydrogen gas.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchet (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0001091 A1) in view of Landoni et al. (“EUV tools: Hydrogen gas purification and recovery strategies” Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXIX, Jason P. Cain ed. (2015)).
Regarding claim 11, Blanchet anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Blanchet does not teach a vacuum pumping system comprising the electrochemical hydrogen pump.
However, Landoni teaches a vacuum pumping system (“vacuum driven technology” abstract and “a pump, to pressurize the EUV tool exhaust gas,” § 3.2 para. 1) comprising an electrochemical hydrogen pump attached to the output of the vacuum pump (“An electrochemical purifier and compressor” § 3.2 para. 3), which provides the predicable benefit of reducing the amount of nitrogen in a hydrogen recycle stream (“for the removal at N2 from high part-per-millions levels to low part-per-billions levels or less,” § 3.2 para. 3), thereby enabling recycling of the hydrogen (“to have H2 sufficiently purified to be recycled into the same facility feeding EUV” § 3.2 para. 1).
As Blanchet teaches an electrochemical hydrogen pump for the purpose of purifying a hydrogen feed, Blanchet is analogous art to the instant invention. As Landoni teaches a method of purifying hydrogen gas for use in an EUV system, Landoni is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrochemical hydrogen pump of Blanchet, such that it comprises a vacuum pumping system, as taught by Landoni. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Landoni teaches that electrochemical hydrogen pumps are suitable for purifying hydrogen when fed by a vacuum pump in an EUV system. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using the electrochemical hydrogen pump of Blanchet in place of the generic electrochemical hydrogen pump of Landoni) to achieve predictable results (purifying hydrogen) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Blanchet further teaches, via Landoni, the multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump is fluidly connected to a vacuum pump and configured to receive the first gas mixture from the vacuum pump (“a pump, to pressurize the EUV tool exhaust gas” § 3.2 para. 1 and “The second step of the hydrogen purification, … An electrochemical purifier and compressor” § 3.2 para. 3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Blanchet renders the limitations of claim 11 obvious, as described above.
Modified Blanchet further teaches, via Landoni, an extreme ultraviolet lithography system comprising the vacuum pumping system (“extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV)” abstract, see also Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Blanchet further teaches, via Landoni, the first gas mixture is made up of hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas (“The second step of the hydrogen purification, primarily for the removal at N2 from high part-per-millions levels to low part-per-billions levels or less” § 3.2 para. 3).
Claims 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (WO 2021/018852 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump (p. 4 final para. and abstract), comprising:
a first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage fluidly connected to a second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage (“The cathodic outlet from the first stage … is normally the input of one or more anodic half-cells at the second stage,” p. 4 final para.),
wherein the first electrochemical pumping stage comprises a plurality of first electrochemical cells (“an electrochemical compressor with multiple cells, 51a and 51b forming a stage” p. 22 para. 2 and Fig. 7b), a plurality of first input lines and first output lines (see Fig. 7b), and is configured to receive a first gas mixture comprising hydrogen gas (“Hydrogen enters through the anodic inlets 52a [and] 52b at a first pressure” p. 22 para. 2 and Fig. 7b), electrochemically separate hydrogen gas from the first gas mixture to produce a second gas mixture (“crossing the membranes 54a and 54b via the reaction mechanism disclosed above, and reforming in the cathodes 56a [and] 56b.” Id.), and output the second gas mixture to the second electrochemical pumping stage (“Hydrogen at a second pressure is communicated from the cathodes, via cathodic outlets 53a and 53b to piping 57, the stream forming the feed for the next stage of compression.” Id.), and
wherein the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage is configured to receive the second gas mixture from the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage (“Hydrogen enters the cell in the next stage of compression 51c through the anodic inlet 52c.” p. 22 para. 2 and Fig. 7b), electrochemically separate hydrogen gas from the second gas mixture to produce a third gas mixture (“56c” Fig. 7b), and output the third gas mixture (see Fig. 7b).
Schmidt does not explicitly teach the second electrochemical pumping stage comprises a plurality of second electrochemical cells and plurality of second input lines and second output lines.
However, Schmidt further suggests using a plurality of second electrochemical cells for the second electrochemical pumping stage (“Each stage may have 2 or more cells forming said stage.” p. 23 1st para., see also p. 4 4th para.).
As Schmidt teaches a multi-stage electrochemical hydrogen pump, Schmidt is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Schmidt, such that the second electrochemical pumping stage comprises a plurality of second electrochemical cells and a plurality of second input lines and second output lines. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Schmidt suggests using two or more cells in parallel for each electrochemical pumping stage, and to achieve the art recognized benefit of increasing the capacity of the electrochemical hydrogen pump.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt further teaches at least the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage comprises a plurality of electrochemical cells fluidly connected in parallel with each other (Fig. 7b, see also p. 4 para. 4).
Modified Schmidt further suggests, as described in the rejection of claim 1, the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage comprises a plurality of electrochemical cells fluidly connected in parallel with each other (“Each stage may have 2 or more cells forming said stage.” p. 23 1st para., see also p. 4 4th para.,)
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt further teaches the plurality of electrochemical cells of the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are arranged as a stack (Fig. 7b, see also p. 4 paras. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 2 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage comprises a plurality of electrochemical cells fluidly connected in parallel with each other (see Fig. 7b).
Modified Schmidt further teaches the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage comprises a plurality of electrochemical cells fluidly connected in parallel with each other, wherein an output of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells of the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage is fluidly connected to an input of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells of the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage (see below).
As described in the rejection of claim 1, above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Schmidt such that the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage comprises a plurality of electrochemical cells arranged in parallel with each other (see e.g., p. 22 para. 2 and p. 4 para. 4), wherein an output of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells of the first electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage is fluidly connected to an input of each of the plurality of the electrochemical cells of the second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stage (“The cathodic outlets at each stage are then combined, … forming the feed for the anodic inlet 32c of the cell or cells in the next compression stage” p. 22 para. 1 and see e.g., p. 5 para. 4), because Schmidt suggests making these modifications.
Regarding claim 5, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are fluidly connected to each other via fluid lines (see Fig. 7b).
Regarding claim 6, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches a housing (“endplate of the stack, or cell, and/or intermediate frames for example” para. bridging p. 14-15), wherein the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are located within the housing (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are located within the housing”, Schmidt teaches the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are integrally formed, one with another (see Fig. 7b). Therefore, as each stack is contained within a housing formed of endplates and frames (para. bridging p. 14-15), Schmidt teaches the first and second stages are contained within the same housing.
In the alternative, because Schmidt teaches the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages are integrally formed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the both the first and second stages in the same housing.
Regarding claim 7, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches the second gas mixture has a greater proportion of hydrogen gas compared to the first gas mixture (“The present invention both pressurises and purifies the hydrogen; any allowed contaminants do not pass beyond the first half-cell.” p. 8 para. 2), and the third gas mixture has a greater proportion of hydrogen gas compared to the second gas mixture (“the MPL, if used, may have different properties at various locations in the stack, such as being more hydrophobic in the latter [sic] cells. An MPL which is more hydrophobic in the final cell, or cells, would prevent (excess) water from being present in the final outlet,” p. 9 final para.).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches the first gas mixture is made up of hydrogen gas (“hydrogen generated by any known means” p. 8 para. 1) and one or more other types of gas (“Contaminants may be present, but should be limited to water and oxygen.,” Id.), wherein the one or more other types of gas are carbon dioxide gas (“gaseous acids are permissible, such as CO2,” Id.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches the hydrogen gas comprises at least protium (“H2” e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches one or more further electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages fluidly connected in series to the first and second electrochemical hydrogen pumping stages (see e.g., Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, modified Schmidt renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Schmidt further teaches using the multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump to pump hydrogen gas (e.g., abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ukai (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0383283 A1) teaches the general structure of an electrochemical hydrogen compressor stack e.g., parallel fluidic inlets and outlets to a plurality of individual electrochemical cells (Figs. 2a and 3a). Kutchcoskie (US Pat. Pub. 2016/0053387 A1) teaches the use of an electrochemical hydrogen pump for isotope enrichment/depletion, as relates to claim 9. Wong (US Pat. Pub. 2004/0211679 A1) teaches a multistage electrochemical hydrogen pump, wherein each stage is contained in a single housing (see e.g., Figs. 2 and 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights