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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5: “each adsorber” should read “each adsorber of the at least two adsorbers”
Claim 1, line 9: “each connection pair” should read “each connection of the connection pair”
Claim 4, line 3: “means of fluid lines” should read “the means of fluid lines”
Claim 6, line 2: “the adsorbers” should read “the at least two adsorbers”
Claim 6, line 12: “the first and/or second flaps” should read “the first flap and/or the second f flap” Claim 8, lines 2-3: “residual gas outlet” should read “the residual gas outlet”
Claim 9, line 5: “fluid lines” should read “the means of fluid lines”
Claim 9, lines 5-6: “the first and the second heat exchanger connection” should read “the first heat exchanger connection and the second heat exchanger connection”
Claim 9, line 6: “the first and the second adsorber connection” should read “the first adsorber connection and the second adsorber connection”
Claim 10, line 2: “the height equal” should read “the height is equal”Claim 10, line 3: “the transverse dimension is equal to the width, the depth, or an average thereof” should read “the transverse dimension is equal to the width, the depth, or an average of the width and the depth”
Claim 11, lines 3-4: “for each of the adsorbers” should read “for each of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers”
Claim 11, lines 5-7: “to direct an air flow to the adsorber during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber, and to direct it from the adsorber to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the adsorber; and” should read “to direct an air flow to one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, and to direct it from the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers; and”
Claim 11, lines 8-10: “during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to the adsorber and, after flowing through the adsorber, to direct it to a residual gas outlet” should read “during the regeneration phase of one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers and, after flowing through the respective adsorber of the at least two adsorbers, to direct it to a residual gas outlet”
Claim 12, line 3: “a connection pair” should read “the connection pair”
Claim 12, line 3: “the adsorber” should read “one of the adsorbers of the at least two adsorbers”
Claim 12, line 4: “connected thereto” should read “connected to the connection pair”
Claim 12, line 5: “the adsorber” should read “the other adsorber of the at least two adsorbers”
Claim 12, line 5: “connected thereto” should read “connected to the connection pair”
Claim 13, line 3: “at least two adsorbers” should read “the at least two adsorbers”
Claim 13, lines 3-4: “an adsorption phase and a regeneration phase” should read “the adsorption phase and the regeneration phase”
Claim 13, line 4: “a main heat exchanger arrangement” should read “the main heat exchanger arrangement”
Claim 13, line 5: “means of fluid lines” should read “the means of fluid lines”
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claims 14-15 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of fluid lines” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Lines 2-4 recite, “a connection which can be connected to the main air compressor arrangement via a fluid line, wherein this connection is arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module” which is not supported as Fig. 2B of the present disclosure depicts compressor connection 60 to be located near a bottom of the distributor module 20, not at an upper third of the distributor module 20. No description of the positioning of the compressor connection 60 is provided in the specification of the present disclosure. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 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 1, lines 9-17 recite, “a valve and flap assembly that is optionally configured for each connection pair: in a first state of the connection pair, to fluidically connect the compressor connection to the first adsorber connection of the connection pair and fluidically connect the second adsorber connection of the connection pair to the first heat exchanger connection; and, in a second state of the connection pair, to fluidically connect the second heat exchanger connection to the second adsorber connection of the connection pair, and to fluidically connect the first adsorber connection of the connection pair to the residual gas connection or a residual gas outlet” which is unclear to the Examiner if the first state and second state of the connection pair is entirely optional or if the connection pair is to be capable of switching between a first state and a second state via the valve and flap assembly. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the valve and flap assembly to have the connections required by the first state and the second state.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein the height is at least 1.5 times greater than the transverse dimensions”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 2 times” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 4, lines 2-3 recite, “having connections which can be connected to the warm end of the main heat exchanger arrangement by means of fluid lines” which is unclear to the Examiner which connections of the previously claimed compressor connection, first adsorber connection, second adsorber connection, first heat exchanger connection, second heat exchanger connection, and residual gas connection are being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret any of the many previously claimed connections of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends to constitute the connections of claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the warm end of the main heat exchanger arrangement" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the warm end of the main heat exchanger arrangement" in lines 2-3 of claim 4 to “a warm end of the main heat exchanger arrangement”.
Claim 4, lines 3-4 recite, “wherein these connections are arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module” which is unclear to the Examiner which connections of the previously claimed compressor connection, first adsorber connection, second adsorber connection, first heat exchanger connection, second heat exchanger connection, and residual gas connection are being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret any of the many previously claimed connections of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends to constitute the connections of claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the upper third" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the upper third" in line 4 of claim 4 to “an upper third”.
Claim 5, lines 2-3 recite, “a connection which can be connected to the main air compressor arrangement via a fluid line” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the connection of claim 5 relates to the previously claimed compressor connection of claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the connection of claim 5 and the compressor connection to be the same component. The Examiner recommends using consistent terminology when referring to the same components throughout the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the upper third" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the upper third" in line 3 of claim 5 to “an upper third”.
Claim 5, lines 2-4 recite, “a connection which can be connected to the main air compressor arrangement via a fluid line, wherein this connection is arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module” which is unclear to the Examiner as Fig. 2B of the present disclosure depicts compressor connection 60 to be located near a bottom of the distributor module 20, not at an upper third of the distributor module 20. No description of the positioning of the compressor connection 60 is provided in the specification of the present disclosure. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require a compressor connection.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fluid flows" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the fluid flows" in line 2 of claim 6 to “fluid flows”.
The term “almost” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” 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. The degree to which the first valves and/or flaps are horizontal is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “almost”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "i.e.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations following the phrase to not be part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fluid flows" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the fluid flows" in line 6 of claim 6 to “fluid flows”.
The term “almost” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” 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. The degree to which the second valves and/or flaps are vertical is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “almost”.
The term “almost” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” 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. The degree to which the connection lines are arranged in a vertical plane is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “almost”.
Claim 6, lines 10-11 recite, “wherein the second valves and/or flaps are preferably arranged spatially above the first valves and/or flaps” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 6 does optionally claims the first valves and/or flaps and the second valves and/or flaps and therefore does not require both the first valves and/or flaps and the second valves and/or flaps. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitation to only be a required limitations of the claims if both the first valves and/or flaps and the second valves and/or flaps are used in claim 6.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein preferably the first and/or second flaps are arranged horizontally or almost horizontally”, and the claim also recites “in particular if these are designed as three-lever flaps” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
The term “almost” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” 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. The degree to which the first and/or second flaps are horizontal is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “almost”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "i.e.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations following the phrase to not be part of the claimed invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “comprising a support frame”, and the claim also recites “in particular a steel support frame” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 9, line 5 recites, “these elements” which is unclear to the Examiner which of the many previously claimed elements are being referred to. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will interpret “these elements” to refer to any of the previously claimed elements.
The term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The degree to which the support frame is cuboid is rendered indefinite but the use of the term “substantially”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the support frame is substantially cuboid and has a length, a width and a depth; wherein the height equal to the length and the transverse dimension is equal to the width, the depth, or an average thereof”, and the claim also recites “wherein preferably the width and the depth are independently of one another in the range of 3 .5 m to 7 m, and preferably the length is in the range of 10 m to 30 m” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly”, and the claim also recites “wherein preferably, the control unit is configured to control the valve and flap assembly so that at least one pair of connections is operated alternately according to the first state” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 12, line 6 recites, “at least one pair of connections” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the “at least one pair of connections” of claim 12 relates to the previously claimed connection pair of claim 1 from which claim 12 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the at least one pair of connections and the connection pair to be the same components. The Examiner recommends using consistent terminology when referring to the same components throughout the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is arranged between the distributor module and the separation column arrangement”, and the claim also recites “wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is preferably mounted in a main heat exchanger module” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “wherein the height of the distributor module in relation to a heat exchanger height of the main heat exchanger arrangement or the main heat exchanger module is between the heat exchanger height minus 5 m and heat exchanger height plus 5 m”, and the claim also recites “wherein the height of the distributor module is preferably greater than the heat exchanger height” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claims 14-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque.
Regarding claim 1, Bracque discloses a distributor module for a process engineering system, which is connected to a main air compressor arrangement, at least two adsorbers, each of which can be operated in an adsorption phase and a regeneration phase, and a main heat exchanger arrangement can be connected by means of fluid lines (Fig. 1, warm module 3, air compression module 1, electric motor 8, principal compressor 9, cylinders 2A, 2B, cold module 4, heat exchange line 24, subcooler 25, connecting tubes 6; Col. 2, lines 56-57, The cylinders 2A, 2B are conventional adsorption cylinders; Further, the cylinders 2A, 2B of Bracque have the same structure as the claimed at least two adsorbers and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed), comprising:
a compressor connection for each adsorber to be connected, a connection pair with a first adsorber connection and a second adsorber connection, a first heat exchanger connection and a second heat exchanger connection and a residual gas connection or a residual gas outlet and (Fig. 1, inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15, connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29, conduit 19; Col. 2, lines 66-67, the conduit 19 for evacuating the residual gas of the column),
a valve and flap assembly that is optionally configured for each connection pair (Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves):
in a first state of the connection pair, to fluidically connect the compressor connection to the first adsorber connection of the connection pair and fluidically connect the second adsorber connection of the connection pair to the first heat exchanger connection (Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the compressor module 1 to be fluidically connected to the cylinders 2A, 2B and to the cold module 4 via inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15, connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29); and,
in a second state of the connection pair, to fluidically connect the second heat exchanger connection to the second adsorber connection of the connection pair, and to fluidically connect the first adsorber connection of the connection pair to the residual gas connection or a residual gas outlet (Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the cold module 4 to be connected to cylinders 2A, 2B and conduit 19 via connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29),
wherein the distributor module has a floor side, and a height of the distributor module measured perpendicular to the floor side, and traverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side. (See annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque below, floor side F, height H, traverse dimension T).
While Bracque may not expressly teach the height of the distributor module is greater than both transverse dimensions of the distributor module measured parallel to the floor side of the instant claim, Bracque teaches a distributor module. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the distributor module of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the transverse dimensions are each one of the following dimensions:
a maximum dimension of the distributor module parallel to the floor side (Annotated Fig. 3 of Bracque depicts the traverse dimensions T of the modules to be parallel to the floor side F).
Regarding claim 5, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), having a connection which can be connected to the main air compressor arrangement via a fluid line wherein this connection is arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module (Fig. 1, inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 7, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a regeneration gas heater that is fluidly connected to the second heat exchanger connection (Fig. 1, reheater 18; Col. 2, lines 65-66, a reheater 18 for gas for regenerating the adsorbent; Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves; Further, the teachings of Bracque at least imply the a regeneration gas heater that is fluidly connected to the second heat exchanger connection since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 8, the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a blowdown silencer arranged on the residual gas connection or residual gas outlet (Fig. 1, muffler 20; Col. 2, lines 66-67, the conduit 19 for evacuating the residual gas of the column, provided with a muffler 20).
Regarding claim 9, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a support frame, in particular a steel support frame, on which are mounted the valve and flap assembly, and/or the regeneration gas heater and/or optionally a control unit, and/or; the blowdown silencer, wherein fluid lines for connecting these elements, and for connecting to the compressor connection, the first and the second heat exchanger connection, and the first and the second adsorber connection, are also mounted on the support frame (Fig. 1, parallelepipedal framework 13; Col. 2-3, lines 59-67 and 1-6, The module 3 comprises a parallelepipedal framework 13 in which are fixed the assembly of the "warm" elements of the installation other than the compression module and the purification cylinders: the final cooler 14 of the compressor, connected to an inlet connection 15 disposed facing the connection 11, and a cold group 17 mounted in series with the cooler 14, a reheater 18 for gas for regenerating the adsorbent, the conduit 19 for evacuating the residual gas of the column, provided with a muffler 20, and also the assembly of the monitoring, control and instrumentation members relating to the elements 14 to 20, schematically shown at 21. The module 3 also comprises two connections 22A, 22B for each respective cylinder 2A, 2B, and couplings 23 for connection with the cold module 4, three in number in this example; Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 10, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 9 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the support frame is substantially cuboid and has a length, a width and a depth; wherein the height equal to the length and the transverse dimension is equal to the width, the depth, or an average thereof (Fig. 1, parallelepipedal framework; Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts height H to be equal to a length L and the traverse dimensions to be equal to a width W of the modules and a depth D; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 13, Bracque as modified discloses an air separation plant comprising a distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above) and further comprising a main air compressor arrangement, at least two adsorbers, each of which can be operated in an adsorption phase and a regeneration phase, and a main heat exchanger arrangement which are connected to the distributor module by means of fluid lines (Fig. 1, warm module 3, air compression module 1, electric motor 8, principal compressor 9, cylinders 2A, 2B, cold module 4, heat exchange line 24, subcooler 25, connecting tubes 6; Col. 2, lines 56-57, The cylinders 2A, 2B are conventional adsorption cylinders; Further, the cylinders 2A, 2B of Bracque have the same structure as the claimed at least two adsorbers and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 13 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 13 above) comprising a separation column arrangement, wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is arranged between the distributor module and the separation column arrangement, and wherein the main heat exchanger arrangement is preferably mounted in a main heat exchanger module, and/or the separation column arrangement is mounted in a separation column module (Fig. 1, double distillation column 5, cylindrical wall 32, cold module 4; Col. 3, lines 7-21, The module 4 comprises the principal heat exchange line 24, constituted by several parallelepipedal heat exchangers of the brazed plate type, a subcooler 25, the cold accessories of the installation such as cryogenic pumps 26 and turbines 27, and the assembly of the monitoring, control and instrumentation members relating to the elements 24 to 27, schematically shown at 28. The module 4 also comprises inlet/outlet connectors 29 of the heat exchange line, of a number equal to the couplings 23 and disposed facing these latter, and couplings 30 for connection to the column 5. The assembly of the elements 24 to 30 is mounted in a parallelepipedal framework 31. The assembly of the cold parts of the cold elements (exchangers 24 and 25, bodies of cryogenic valves, pumps 26, turbines 27, etc.) are thermally insulated, for example by means of perlite; Further, Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the heat exchange line 24 and the subcooler 25 to be mounted in cold module 4 between warm module 3 and the double distillation column 5; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 15, Bracque as modified discloses the air separation plant according to claim 13 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 13 above).
While Bracque as modified may not expressly teach wherein the height of the distributor module in relation to a heat exchanger height of the main heat exchanger arrangement or the main heat exchanger module is between the heat exchanger height minus 5 m and heat exchanger height plus 5 m of the instant claim, Bracque teaches a distributor module. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the distributor module of Bracque is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque in view of Mori et al. (JP 6466008), hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claim 2, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bracque as modified does not disclose wherein the height is at least 1.5 times, preferably at least 2 times, greater than the transverse dimensions.
Mori teaches altering the size dimensions of a distributor module based on transportation restrictions (Pg. 6, paragraph 26, The frame (support) of each module 11, 12, 13 constituting the switching device 1 is a rectangular parallelepiped, and the amount of raw material air and the main piping (L1, L1a, L1b, L6, L6a, L6b, L2, L5, L7, L10, etc.) and the module size (length a, width b, height c) are determined according to the transportation restriction size). As such, it appears dimensions of the distributor module is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the height or traverse dimensions of the distributor module changes transportation requirements. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the distributor module of Bracque as modified where the height is at least 1.5 times, preferably at least 2 times, greater than the transverse dimensions, as it only involves adjusting transportation requirements of the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the distributor module by making the height is at least 1.5 times, preferably at least 2 times, greater than the transverse dimensions as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Paragraph A). As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque in view of Rampp (US 20130283855), hereinafter Rampp.
Regarding claim 4, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), having connections which can be connected to the warm end of the main heat exchanger arrangement by means of fluid lines (Fig. 1, inlet/outlet connectors 29).
However, Bracque as modified does not disclose wherein these connections are arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module.
Rampp teaches wherein these connections are arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module (Fig. 2 of Rampp depicts ports 10a, 10b for connecting between the piping module 10 and the two main heat exchangers 1a, 1b to be arranged in the upper third of the height of the piping module 10).
Bracque as modified fails to teach wherein these connections are arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module, however Rampp teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to include wherein these connections are arranged in the upper third of the height of the distributor module. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bracque as modified by Rampp and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution.
Regarding claim 6, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein second valves and/or flaps, which shut off/release the fluid flows between connection pairs and the heat exchanger connections (Col. 3, lines 22-27, It will be understood that, according to the installation under consideration, the elements of the modules 3 and 4 can vary as to type and number. Moreover, these modules comprise all the connection conduits for their elements to each other, with corresponding automatic and/or remotely controlled valves).
However, Bracque as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly, that is, the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane.
Rampp teaches wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly, that is, the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane (Fig. 2 of Rampp depicts the valve 14 and the connection lines to be arranged in a vertical plate in the piping module 10; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Bracque as modified fails to teach wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly, that is, the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane, however Rampp teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to include wherein second valves and/or flaps are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane in the distributor module or in the valve and flap assembly, that is, the connection lines to which the corresponding valve is connected are arranged in a vertical or almost vertical plane. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bracque as modified by Rampp and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a simple arrangement for fluid distribution.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracque et al. (US Patent No. 5,461,871), hereinafter Bracque in view of Hirose (JP 6668542), hereinafter Hirose.
Regarding claim 11, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), configured, when the distributor module is connected to the main air compressor arrangement, the at least two adsorbers and the main heat exchanger arrangement, for each of the adsorbers, independently of each other (Fig. 1 of Bracque depicts the warm module 3 to be connected to the air compressor module 1, cylinders 2A, 2B, and the cold module 4 via inlet connector 11, inlet connection 15, connections 12A, 12B, connections 22A, 22B, coupling 23, inlet/outlet connectors 29).
However, Bracque as modified does not explicitly disclose the system to direct an air flow to the adsorber during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber, and to direct it from the adsorber to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the adsorber; and,
during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to the adsorber and, after flowing through the adsorber, to direct it to a residual gas outlet.
Hirose teaches the system to direct an air flow to the adsorber during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber, and to direct it from the adsorber to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the adsorber (Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line); and,
during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to the adsorber and, after flowing through the adsorber, to direct it to a residual gas outlet (Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line).
Bracque as modified fails to teach the system to direct an air flow to the adsorber during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber, and to direct it from the adsorber to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the adsorber; and, during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to the adsorber and, after flowing through the adsorber, to direct it to a residual gas outlet, however Hirose teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to include wherein the system to direct an air flow to the adsorber during the adsorption phase of the respective adsorber, and to direct it from the adsorber to the main heat exchanger arrangement after flowing through the adsorber; and, during the regeneration phase of the respective adsorber, to direct a regeneration gas flow from the main heat exchanger arrangement to the adsorber and, after flowing through the adsorber, to direct it to a residual gas outlet. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bracque as modified by Hirose and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 12, Bracque as modified discloses the distributor module according to claim 1 (see the modification of the reference used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly (Fig. 1, assemblies 21, 2, work station 35; Col. 3-4, line 67 and 1-5, Moreover, in the installation of FIG. 1, there can be provided assemblies 21 and 28 in the compartments that are open and facing each other, and there can be provided between them, between the modules 3 and 4, a work station 35 having direct access to all the monitoring, control and instrumentation members of the installation).
However, Bracque as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the regeneration phase, wherein preferably, the control unit is configured to control the valve and flap assembly so that at least one pair of connections is operated alternately according to the first state.
Hirose teaches the control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly wherein a connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the regeneration phase, wherein preferably, the control unit is configured to control the valve and flap assembly so that at least one pair of connections is operated alternately according to the first state (Pg. 9, paragraph 37, The valve switching device 30 switches between the introduction and the derivation of the raw air and the regeneration gas to the first adsorption tower 10 and the second adsorption tower 20, that is, alternately performs the purification processing of the raw air and the regeneration processing of the adsorbent. It is a device to make it. The valve switching device 30 includes a raw air supply line L1 for supplying raw air supplied from the raw air production equipment, and a purified air for supplying purified raw air purified by the adsorption tower to the rectification tower equipment 40. A raw air supply line L2, a regeneration gas supply line L3 for supplying a regeneration gas sent from the rectification tower equipment 40, and a waste gas for discharging a waste gas that is a regeneration gas used for the regeneration treatment of the adsorbent. It has a gas line L4 and a valve control unit 35 for controlling the opening and closing of a gate valve (or control valve) installed in each line; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Bracque as modified fails to teach the control unit which is configured to control the valve and flap assembly wherein a connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the regeneration phase, wherein preferably, the control unit is configured to control the valve and flap assembly so that at least one pair of connections is operated alternately according to the first state, however Hirose teaches that it is a known method in the art of low temperature air separation plants to configured the control unit to control the valve and flap assembly wherein a connection pair is operated according to the first state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the adsorption phase, and is operated according to the second state in order to operate the adsorber connected thereto in the regeneration phase, wherein preferably, the control unit is configured to control the valve and flap assembly so that at least one pair of connections is operated alternately according to the first state. This is strong evidence that modifying Bracque as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bracque as modified by Hirose and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of in order to increase the efficiency of continuous operation of the air separation device, the purification process and the regeneration process are alternately switched using two or more adsorption columns (Hirose, Pg. 3, paragraph 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cavagne et al. (US Patent No. 10,807,033) discloses a similar distribution module for a process engineering system.
Yamamoto et al. (JP 3166119) discloses a similar distribution module for a process engineering system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 December 16th, 2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763