DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1 (claims 1-3) and species A3 (fig. 3) in the reply filed on 03/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the group” in line 12 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites that the feed oxygen stream is "substantially free of high-boiling-point hydrocarbon impurities" line 5 renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of "substantially free" cannot be ascertained from the intrinsic record. Specifically, the specification of the present application does not define "substantially free" or establish a quantitative threshold below which a hydrocarbon impurity concentration qualifies as "substantially free." The term "substantially" introduces an inherent degree of subjectivity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine, with reasonable certainty, where the line falls between an oxygen stream that is "substantially free" of high-boiling-point hydrocarbon impurities and one that is not. The specification provides no guidance. The application's specification, at paragraph [0081], states that "the feed oxygen is by-product oxygen from water electrolysis, and contains low-boiling-point components dissolved in the water" but does not quantify high-boiling-point hydrocarbon species or establish a "substantially free" threshold.
Claims 10-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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) 1-2 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier, Sr. et al. (US 5,049,173) in view of Lochner et al. (US 2025/0271208).
In regard to claim 1, Cormier teaches an ultra-high-purity oxygen production method utilizing an air separation unit comprising a main heat exchanger (20), a nitrogen rectification column (rectifier 22), a nitrogen condenser (reboiler/condenser 28), an oxygen rectification column (fractionator/stripper 102), and an oxygen vaporizer (reboiler 106) (see at least fig. 2-7 and 11-12), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
Cormier teaches removing ultra-high-purity oxygen (112/114) from a low-boiling-point components (e.g., nitrogen) have been removed is withdrawn as a gas (112) or a liquid (114) from a lower portion of the oxygen rectification column (102) or from the oxygen vaporizer (see fig. 12);
utilizing a heating fluid (32/108/288/600/930) as a heating medium in the oxygen vaporizer (106), wherein the heating fluid (32) is selected from the group consisting of: a portion of feed air cooled in the main heat exchanger, a portion of the feed oxygen cooled in the main heat exchanger, a liquid or gas withdrawn from a medium-pressure rectification column constituting the nitrogen rectification column (22), and combinations thereof (see fig. 2-7 and 11-12);
vaporizing liquefied oxygen supplied from a bottom portion of the oxygen rectification column (102) and supplying a vapour stream thereof to the bottom portion of the oxygen rectification column (see fig. 2-7 and 11-12; col. 6, line 42-50: The vaporized stream is the reboil vapour supplied to the bottom of stripper/oxygen rectification column 102, driving upward vapor flow for cryogenic separation).
Cormier teaches the oxygen-containing feed to fractionator/stripper (102) is an oxygen-enriched side stream (line 100) drawn directly from an intermediate location of rectifier (22) and fed to fractionator (102) via pressure reduction across a valve, without first passing through the warm end of main heat exchanger (20) (see fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach introducing a feed oxygen stream at the warm end of main heat exchanger (20) wherein the feed oxygen is cooled and at least partially liquefied before introduction into the oxygen rectification column.
However, Lochner discloses introducing dried by-product oxygen from water electrolysis (oxygen stream o, from dryer 21) into the warm end of main heat exchanger (4), where the oxygen stream is liquefied by heat exchange with warm feed air and other streams. [fig. 2, 3;¶ 0035, 0065, 0085] The resulting liquefied oxygen stream constitutes feed oxygen that has been "cooled and at least partially liquefied" in the main heat exchanger, satisfying the recited step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of Lochner—introducing external feed oxygen at the warm end of the main heat exchanger for liquefaction—with the established oxygen rectification/stripping method of Cormier, in which the liquefied oxygen-containing stream is introduced into an oxygen rectification column (102) to achieve UHP oxygen. The rationale for this combination is explicit in both references: both are directed to producing high-purity oxygen in conjunction with a nitrogen-generating cryogenic ASU, in order to control the cold capacity of the ASU for oxygen purification at reduced capital and operating costs. One skilled in the art would have recognized that the cryogenic cold available in the main heat exchanger—already relied upon in Lochner to liquefy the electrolysis oxygen—could be further exploited in a downstream oxygen rectification column (as taught by Cormier) to remove trace low-boiling-point impurities such as argon. Indeed, the present application's own background section (¶ 0007) acknowledges that applying known UHP oxygen rectification technology to electrolysis-derived oxygen was a recognized goal in the field.
In regard to claim 2, the modified Cormier teaches the ultra-high-purity oxygen production method according to claim 1, further comprising a step in which liquefied nitrogen or an oxygen-containing liquid supplied from the medium-pressure rectification column, or liquid nitrogen or liquefied air supplied from outside the air separation unit is utilized as a refrigerant in an oxygen condenser (962) provided above or in a top portion of the oxygen rectification column (102), and a low-boiling-point component- containing oxygen stream supplied from the oxygen rectification column is liquefied and supplied to a top portion of the oxygen rectification column as a reflux liquid (see Cormier's, Fig. 12) explicitly teaches an oxygen condenser (reboiler/condenser 962) disposed at the top of auxiliary column 102 (the oxygen rectification column). This top condenser (962) condenses the ascending vapor (line 960) from the top of auxiliary column (102) and returns reflux liquid (line 968) to that column (Fig. 12). The refrigerant used to drive condensation in the top condenser 962 is a portion of the crude liquid oxygen (line 958) drawn from the system—an oxygen-containing liquid supplied from the medium-pressure rectification column (22). The low-boiling-point component-containing overhead vapor (argon-enriched) from the oxygen rectification column is thus condensed and returned as reflux.
In regard to claim 9, Cormier teaches a method for producing ultra-high-purity oxygen utilizing an integrated air separation unit (Abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
Cormier teaches drawing an oxygen-rich liquid from a bottom portion of a medium-pressure nitrogen rectification column that has been fed with a cooled and compressed feed air stream (fig. 3: crude liquid oxygen (oxygen-enriched bottoms) is drawn from the bottom of high-pressure rectifier 22 (line 38) after the column has been fed with compressed feed air cooled in main heat exchanger 20 (via line 21). In the single-column embodiments (Figs. 1–2), rectifier 22 similarly receives compressed, cooled feed air and yields an oxygen-enriched bottoms. Cormier's rectifier 22 thus constitutes a nitrogen rectification column in the sense that it produces a nitrogen-enriched overhead and an oxygen-enriched bottoms from a compressed and cooled feed air stream, and its bottom portion yields an oxygen-rich liquid.
utilizing said oxygen-rich liquid as a heating medium in an oxygen vaporizer disposed in a bottom portion of the oxygen rectification column to vaporize a portion of liquefied oxygen at the bottom portion of the oxygen rectification column, thereby providing a rising vapour stream to drive cryogenic separation of the low-boiling-point impurities (Fig. 2: portion of the crude liquid oxygen stream from the bottom of nitrogen rectifier 22 (line 288) is directed to reboiler (286), which is disposed at the bottom of stripper/oxygen rectification column (102). The crude liquid oxygen is subcooled in reboiler 286, thereby providing heat duty to reboil stripper 102, which vaporizes liquefied oxygen at the bottom of the oxygen rectification column and supplies a rising vapor stream to drive upward vapor flow for cryogenic stripping of low-boiling-point impurities (argon, nitrogen) (Fig. 2 (reboiler 286, oxygen line 288));
extracting a product ultra-high-purity oxygen stream having an oxygen concentration of at least 99.99999% from a lower portion of the oxygen rectification column (Cormier teaches extracting UHP oxygen as a gas (line 112) or liquid (line 114) from the bottom of stripper/oxygen rectification column 102 (see fig. 1)). Cormier's entire disclosure is directed to producing UHP oxygen with contaminant levels reduced to below 10 vppm by cryogenic stripping. In this case, by optimizing the number of theoretical stages in the oxygen rectification column and the reflux ratio—standard engineering parameters fully within the skill of the art—the 99.99999% oxygen concentration (equivalent to total impurities below 0.1 vppm or 100 ppb) is achievable. The present application's own working example (¶ 0111) demonstrates achieving 10 ppb argon impurity from a 1 ppm argon feed using a similar oxygen rectification column (NTP=60), establishing that this purity level is within the predictable range of cryogenic rectification. Achieving a specific numerical purity threshold by appropriate column design is routine engineering, not inventive.
Cormier does not explicitly teach or disclose using by-product oxygen generated by water electrolysis as the feed oxygen stream. Cormier's feed oxygen streams are air-derived (side draws from the ASU's high-pressure or low-pressure rectification columns, see Fig. 1]
However, Lochner explicitly teaches providing a feed oxygen stream of by-product oxygen generated by water electrolysis. Lochner discloses subjecting water to electrolysis in electrolyzer (20) to obtain a water-containing oxygen stream (o) and a hydrogen stream (Lochner, Fig. 1). The oxygen stream (o) is by-product oxygen of the water electrolysis process. Lochner further explicitly teaches that this electrolysis oxygen inherently does not contain high-boiling-point hydrocarbon impurities derived from the atmosphere, satisfying the "substantially free of high-boiling-point hydrocarbon impurities" limitation. Additionally, Lochner acknowledges that the electrolysis oxygen is primarily contaminated only with water and may contain trace low-boiling-point dissolved gases such as argon and nitrogen from the water, which corresponds to the recited "low-boiling-point impurities".
Lochner explicitly teaches this step. After drying the water-containing electrolysis oxygen stream in dryer (21) to obtain a dried oxygen stream (o), Lochner discloses introducing the dried oxygen stream at the warm end of main heat exchanger (4) of the air separation plant, where the oxygen stream is fully liquefied (passed through main heat exchanger 4, liquefied there) (see fig. 1).
Neither Lochner nor Cormier individually and explicitly discloses the combination of first liquefying electrolysis-derived feed oxygen in the main heat exchanger and then introducing the liquefied stream into a dedicated oxygen rectification column for cryogenic separation. Lochner directs the liquefied electrolysis oxygen to a storage tank (22) for product delivery, not to an oxygen rectification column. Cormier introduces its oxygen-containing feed streams to the oxygen rectification column (102) from within the ASU (from intermediate stages of the nitrogen rectification column), not from an external warm-end liquefaction path (see fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lochner’s teaching of liquefying electrolysis oxygen in the main heat exchanger with Cormier's process of introducing the liquefied oxygen-containing stream into a dedicated oxygen rectification column for UHP oxygen production, in order to dissolve and remove low-boiling-point impurities in an oxygen stream, and the very problem addressed by the present application—in order to removing argon from electrolysis-derived oxygen to achieve high purity. One skilled in the art would recognize that electrolysis oxygen contains trace argon from dissolved atmospheric gases in the water feedstock, and that removing such trace argon by cryogenic rectification is the only technically viable approach to achieve UHP oxygen purity levels.
In regard to claim 10, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the low-boiling-point impurities in the feed oxygen stream include argon at a concentration of approximately 1 ppm, and wherein the extracted product ultra-high-purity oxygen stream comprises an argon concentration of 10 ppb or less. In this case, Cormier expressly teaches that argon is a low-boiling-point impurity present in oxygen streams processed by the cryogenic stripping column (102), and that the stripping operation removes argon to UHP levels. The specific feed concentration of "approximately 1 ppm" argon is consistent with the trace dissolved argon expected in water-electrolysis-derived oxygen (which originates from dissolved atmospheric gases in the feed water), and such a concentration would be well-known or readily determinable through routine measurement by one skilled in the art. The product argon concentration of "10 ppb or less" is a direct result of normal cryogenic rectification column operation. The present application's own working example confirms: a 60-theoretical-plate oxygen rectification column, operating at 1.5 bar(a) with an appropriate liquid-to-vapor ratio, achieves exactly 10 ppb argon in the product from a 1 ppm argon feed. [¶0111] Selection of appropriate column operating parameters to achieve a desired output purity is routine engineering optimization, not a patentably distinct step. Cormier's teaching of cryogenic stripping for UHP oxygen directly encompasses the argon removal mechanism relied upon in claim 10, and the specific concentration values are the result of predictable optimization.
In regard to claim 11, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein Cormier does not explicitly teach drawing the feed oxygen stream from partway through main heat exchanger 20 and expanding it in a dedicated turbine. Cormier's expander (52/54) processes a waste gas stream (line 50) drawn from a different source (see fig. 1). However, Lochner explicitly teaches drawing a fluid stream from an intermediate temperature point of the main heat exchanger (4), expanding it in an expansion machine (turbine 7), and returning the expanded stream to the main heat exchanger to recover cold energy and generate refrigeration to maintain heat balance. [Lochner; Fig. 1 (streams g and h through main heat exchanger 4, expansion machine 7)] . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to established refrigeration generation technique to the feed oxygen stream (rather than a nitrogen/process stream) is an obvious engineering expedient in order restores the cold balance—as a routine cryogenic engineering solution explicitly described in this context in the present application's specification (¶ [0017], [0097]–[0098]) and directly taught as a general principle in Lochner. The result is predictable and the combination yields no more than a predictable outcome: maintenance of heat balance in the main heat exchanger.
In regard to claim 12, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the feed oxygen stream is introduced into the main heat exchanger at a pressure of approximately 10 bar(a), the oxygen-rich liquid is withdrawn from the medium-pressure column at approximately 7.5 bar(a), and the oxygen rectification column is operated at a pressure of approximately 1.5 bar(a). These operating pressures are within the ranges taught by Lochner and represent straightforward engineering choices. The applicant's own working example (para [0108]) states: feed air at 7.7 bar; medium-pressure nitrogen rectification column 2 at 7.5 bar(a); oxygen rectification column 5 operated at 1.5 bar(a)—these exact pressure values being characteristic of the SPECTRA-type single nitrogen column process. Lochner teaches a nitrogen rectification column (11) operating at approximately 6–20 bar (feed air compressed to ~9 bar), consistent with the ~7.5 bar(a) recited for the medium-pressure column. The feed oxygen introduction pressure of ~10 bar(a) falls within the range of standard industrial electrolysis output pressures known in the art (PEM and alkaline electrolyzers commonly operate at 10–30 bar(a)). Selection of specific pressure values within the ranges disclosed and taught by Lochner constitutes routine engineering optimization and not patentable invention.
In regard to claim 13, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, further comprising: drawing a nitrogen-rich gas from a top portion of the medium-pressure nitrogen rectification column; condensing said gas in a nitrogen condenser; and routing a waste gas stream from above the nitrogen condenser to an expansion turbine to be used as a supplemental process fluid for refrigeration. Cormier teaches each of these elements. The nitrogen-rich overhead gas from the top of rectifier 22 (line 24) is directed to reboiler/condenser 28, where it is condensed (element a and b). [Fig. 1] A vaporized waste stream (line 40/50) from the system is fed to expander 52/54 (expansion turbine) for refrigeration generation, and the expanded waste stream (line 54) is returned to main heat exchanger 20 as a supplemental refrigeration source (element c). [Fig. 1]. Lochner similarly teaches these elements in the SPECTRA-type process: nitrogen-rich top gas from nitrogen column 11 → condenser-evaporator 13 (condensation); waste gas streams are expanded in turbine 7 (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 14, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 13, further comprising withdrawing a top gas stream from the oxygen rectification column, mixing the top gas with the waste gas stream downstream the expansion turbine, and then warming the mixed waste stream in the main heat exchanger to recover additional cold energy. Cormier explicitly teaches overhead (top gas) stream from stripper/oxygen rectification column 102 is removed via line 104 as a waste stream, combined with the expanded waste stream from rectifier 22 in line 54, and the combined stream is warmed in main heat exchanger 20 to recover refrigeration (see fig. 1). (stripper overhead line 104 combined with expanded waste in line 54).
In regard to claim 15, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the method further comprises an absence of a demethanizing the feed oxygen stream prior to entering the oxygen rectification column. In this case, the claimed "absence of demethanizing" is an inherent property that naturally flows from the use of water electrolysis as the source of feed oxygen, as recited in claim 9 and taught by Lochner. As Cormier's background section teaches, demethanization is required for air-derived oxygen streams because atmospheric air contains methane and other hydrocarbons that concentrate in the cryogenic oxygen product, presenting both safety and purity concerns (see the background invention). Water electrolysis oxygen, by contrast, is produced from water and does not contain methane or other high-boiling-point hydrocarbon impurities—an observation explicitly made in Lochner). Because the feed oxygen in the combined process is inherently free of high-boiling-point hydrocarbon impurities, no demethanization step is required or appropriate. This is an inherent consequence of the combination of Cormier and Lochner as applied to the rejection of claim 9.
In regard to claim 16, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, further comprising expanding the oxygen- rich liquid after the oxygen-rich liquid has served as the heating medium in the oxygen vaporizer and then introducing said expanded oxygen-rich liquid into a second rectification column of the air separation unit, wherein the second rectification column operates at a lower pressure than the medium-pressure nitrogen rectification column. Cormier expressly teaches this element in the dual-column embodiment (Fig. 3). After the oxygen-enriched bottoms liquid from rectifier 22 (line 38) passes through the reboiler/condenser 28 serving as the oxygen vaporizer (providing heat duty to reboil the stripper), it is reduced in pressure and fed to low-pressure column 200, which operates at a lower pressure than the high-pressure rectifier 22. Fig. 3 (stream 38 from bottom of rectifier 22, pressure reduction, feed to LP column 200).
In regard to claim 17, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the feed oxygen is fully condensed in the main heat exchanger and then expanded in a valve prior to being introduced into a top portion of the oxygen rectification column. Lochner teaches that the dried electrolysis oxygen stream (o) is fully liquefied in main heat exchanger 4, satisfying the "fully condensed in the main heat exchanger" limitation (see Fig. 1). Cormier explicitly teaches expanding the oxygen-containing feed stream across a valve before introduction into the oxygen rectification column: "The oxygen-enriched side stream is then reduced in pressure across a valve and fed to fractionator 102 (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 18, the modified Cormier teaches the method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the liquefied oxygen in the oxygen vaporizer is vaporized solely by latent heat exchange with the oxygen-rich liquid drawn from the medium-pressure nitrogen rectification column, thereby eliminating a need for a dedicated nitrogen heating medium cycle to provide heat to the oxygen vaporizer. Cormier explicitly teaches this exact arrangement in its Fig. 2 embodiment. In Fig. 2, the heat duty for reboiler (286) at the bottom of stripper/oxygen rectification column (102) is provided exclusively by subcooling a portion of the crude liquid oxygen (line 288) drawn from the bottom of nitrogen rectifier 22—with no nitrogen condensation cycle or any other heat source used for this reboiler. [col. 6, lines 12–25; Fig. 2 (reboiler 286, line 288)] Cormier specifically presents this Fig. 2 arrangement as an alternative to the nitrogen overhead condensation heat source of Fig. 1, confirming that the reboiler heat is provided solely by the subcooled crude liquid oxygen in this embodiment.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier and Lochner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lochner (US 2016/0069611 A1), hereinafter --‘US 611’--.
In regard to claim 3, the modified Cormier teaches the ultra-high-purity oxygen production method according to claim 1, wherein Cornier does not explicitly teach a step in which a portion of the feed oxygen drawn from partway through the main heat exchanger is expanded by an expansion turbine and cooled, after which it is once again supplied to the main heat exchanger.
However, Lochner explicitly teaches the closely analogous technique of withdrawing a fluid stream (first fluid stream g, i.e., the lower-oxygen-content stream from condenser-evaporator 13) from an intermediate point of main heat exchanger (4), warming it partway, then expanding it in an expansion machine (turbine 7), after which the expanded stream is returned to the main heat exchanger (Fig. 1 (turbine 7, streams g and h through main HX 4)). This technique of withdrawing a stream midway through the main heat exchanger and expanding it for refrigeration generation before returning it is a standard cryogenic engineering practice. Moreover, ‘US 611’ teaches an identical refrigeration cycle for the SPECTRA-type process, in which a fluid stream is drawn from an intermediate temperature in the main heat exchanger, expanded for refrigeration, and returned. [‘US 611’; Fig. 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply this established refrigeration technique to the feed oxygen stream—rather than to a process nitrogen stream as in Lochner —represents an obvious engineering expedient well within the skill of a cryogenic engineer in order to maintain to maintain a heat balance in the main heat exchanger when processing cold electrolysis oxygen, a recognized design consideration in integration of electrolysis oxygen with cryogenic ASUs. The result is predictable: refrigeration is generated within the main heat exchanger to compensate for the cold demand created by liquefying the feed oxygen.
Conclusion
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