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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 10, 2025 has been considered. The amendments to the specification are acceptable. Claims 1-15, 20, and 30-35 are canceled. Claims 16-19 and 21-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. In particular, Applicant (at page 9, second paragraph) argues,
“McDaniel does not render independent claim 16 obvious because McDaniel does not teach Applicant's claim limitation of a single fluidized bed reactor that is configured to produce a reaction mixture comprising methanol from methane and water in the presence of a supported chromium catalyst in an oxidizing atmosphere and that comprises a source of a light beam at a wavelength in the UV-visible spectrum. McDaniel discloses non-limiting examples of suitable reactors or vessels capable of being used to form the alcohol compound and/or carbonyl compound; and a fluidized bed reactor is listed among various suitable reactors/vessels at paragraphs [0044] and [0045]. Similarly at paragraphs [0176]-[0177], McDaniel discloses that the hydrocarbon reactant can be contacted with a fluidized bed or fixed bed of the supported chromium catalyst. With respect to claim 9, McDaniel refers to a process of "contacting the hydrocarbon reactant with a fluidized bed of the supported chromium catalyst" or "contacting the hydrocarbon reactant with a fixed bed of the supported chromium catalyst." There is no explicit teaching of a methanol production system comprising a single fluidized bed reactor that is "configured to produce a reaction mixture comprising methanol from methane and water in the presence of a supported chromium catalyst in an oxidizing atmosphere" as set forth in independent claim 16.” (emphasis added).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
"To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references." Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In the instant case, McDaniel et al. (at paragraph [0044]) states,
“Any suitable reactor or vessel can be used to form the alcohol compound and/or the carbonyl compound, non-limiting examples of which can include a flow reactor, a continuous reactor, a packed bed reactor, a fluidized bed reactor, and a stirred tank reactor, including more than one reactor in series or in parallel, and including any combination of reactor types and arrangements.” (emphasis added).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the paragraph as teaching that a reactor (singular), such as a fluidized bed reactor (singular), can be used to form the alcohol compound. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further interpreted the paragraph as teaching that either one reactor or more than one reactor can be used, as desired. Therefore, the provision of an apparatus comprising “a single fluidized bed reactor” to form the alcohol compound would have been considered obvious in light of the teachings of the reference.
McDaniel et al. (at paragraph [0045]) further states,
“… In yet another aspect, the disclosed processes can comprise contacting the hydrocarbon reactant with a fluidized bed of the solid supported chromium catalyst, and irradiating while contacting (fluidizing).” (emphasis added).
McDaniel et al. (at paragraph [0041]) further states,
“In the disclosed processes, irradiation of a supported chromium catalyst with a light beam in the UV-visible spectrum, in the presence of a hydrocarbon reactant, results in a chromium catalyst with a reduced oxidation state (e.g., a reduced chromium catalyst)…. For instance, the light can be derived from any suitable source, such as from sunlight, a fluorescent white light, an LED diode, and/or a UV lamps…” (emphasis added).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also considered a single fluidized bed reactor containing “a supported chromium catalyst” and comprising “a source of a light beam at a wavelength in the UV-visible spectrum” to be obvious in light of the teachings of the reference.
The raw materials to be introduced into the reactor (i.e., reactants including “methane and water” and an added material for creating “an oxidizing atmosphere” in the reactor) and the products to be produced by the reactor (i.e., “a reaction mixture comprising methanol”) are not considered elements of the apparatus, as they are merely the materials to be worked upon by the apparatus during an intended operation.
In any event, McDaniel et al. (see, e.g., paragraphs [0050], [0064]) specifically discloses that the reactor can be used for producing a reaction mixture comprising methanol from reactants including methane and water in the presence of the supported chromium catalyst.
The Office maintains that the fluidized bed reactor of McDaniel et al. is “configured to produce a reaction mixture comprising methanol from methane and water in the presence of a supported chromium catalyst in an oxidizing atmosphere” because the fluidized bed reactor would be able to perform the recited function in the event that, during operation, raw materials including methane, water, and a material for creating an oxidizing atmosphere were introduced into the fluidized bed reactor, and suitable process conditions were maintained in the fluidized bed reactor to produce a reaction mixture comprising methanol.
Applicant (at page 10, first paragraph) further argues,
“As an example, claims 21 and 22 detail the arrangement of the one or more immersion lamps or the one or more internal light sources of the fluidized bed reactor. Relatedly, Applicant submits that secondary references Noceti and Weben relied upon in rejecting claims 21 and 22 also do not cure this shortcoming of McDaniel, because Noceti and Weben also do not disclose a single fluidized bed reactor that is configured to produce a reaction mixture comprising methanol from methane and water in the presence of a supported chromium catalyst in an oxidizing atmosphere.” (emphasis added).
The argument is not found persuasive because Noceti et al. and Weben et al. were merely relied upon to teach suitable arrangements of immersion lamps as the source of the light beam, for the purpose of irradiating a fluidized bed with UV-visible light.
Applicant (at page 10, second paragraph) further argues,
“Similarly, McDaniel does not disclose that a separations system is configured to isolate methanol from a reactor effluent discharged from the single fluidized bed reactor and does not disclose that a recycle system is configured to convey unreacted methane, water, and oxygen back to the single fluidized bed reactor.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
McDaniel et al. (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]) discloses a separations system for separating at least a portion of (and in some cases, all) of the alcohol compound (e.g., methanol) from the crude reaction mixture discharged from the reactor.
McDaniel et al. (see paragraph [0059]) also discloses that components of the reaction product can be recovered and recycled to the reactor and contacted with the supported chromium catalyst again. For instance, residual hydrocarbon reactant (e.g., methane) from the crude reaction mixture can be recycled and contacted with the supported chromium catalyst again, so that the overall conversion of the hydrocarbon reactant is increased after multiple contacts with the catalyst (or multiple passes through the reactor containing the catalyst). The crude reaction mixture would be further expected to contain other residual reactants, including the hydrolysis agent (e.g., water) and the material for creating the oxidizing atmosphere in the reactor, when added. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide the recited recycle system in the apparatus of McDaniel et al. because the recycle system would have allowed for the unreacted, residual reactants to be recycled and contacted with the supported chromium catalyst in the reactor again, thereby increasing the overall conversion of the reactants to products.
Applicant (at page 10, third paragraph) further argues,
“… Weben is not analogous art to McDaniel, Noceti, or to the present application… Respectfully, Applicant disagrees with the PTO's reliance on Weben because the reference is neither from the same field of endeavor as McDaniel, Noceti, or the presently claimed invention, nor is Weben reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by the inventor. The disclosures of McDaniel, Noceti, and the present application are generally directed to processes of, or systems for, converting a hydrocarbon (such as methane) to an alcohol (such as methanol) using a catalyst. Conversely, Weben is directed to preparing superchlorinated polyvinyl chlorides.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Weben et al. would have been considered reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Applicant was concerned (see specification, e.g., at paragraph [0034])— namely, how to effectively irradiate a fluidized bed with a light beam of UV-visible light.
Applicant (at page 11, last paragraph, to page 14, first paragraph) further argues that there would have been no motivation to combine the references to McDaniel et al., Noceti et al., and Weben et al., given that Weben et al. describes a reaction process that is different from the instant reaction process of converting methane and water to methanol in the presence of a supported chromium catalyst. Applicant notes that Weben et al. does not disclose a catalyst, and the reaction process is performed under different processing conditions.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the primary reference to McDaniel et al. discloses “… contacting the hydrocarbon reactant with a fluidized bed of the solid supported chromium catalyst, and irradiating while contacting (fluidizing)” (at paragraph [0045]), wherein the irradiating can be performed by the light beam of a UV lamp (see paragraph [0041]). McDaniel et al., however, fails to present any further details on how the UV lamp should be arranged in the fluidized bed reactor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to existing reactors that also utilized a source of a light beam for promoting a chemical reaction, such as the reactors of Noceti et al. and Weben et al., in order to determine a suitable manner for arranging the lamp(s), so that the fluidized bed was effectively irradiated while contacting.
Noceti et al. (see FIG. 1) was merely relied upon to teach a suitable manner of arranging a source of a light beam comprising an immersion lamp (i.e., a light source 18), wherein the light source is attached to an interior surface that is a top wall of the reactor, and the light source is an internal light source in an interior of the reactor (i.e., the light source 18 comprises a lamp immersed in the reaction fluid 20 and fixed to the top wall of the reactor 16).
Weben et al. (see FIG. 1-2) was merely relied upon to teach a suitable manner of arranging a source of a light beam comprising immersion lamps (i.e., irradiating means 8) in the interior of a fluidized bed reactor, wherein the immersion lamps enter through a port positioned at a wall of the reactor (i.e., the irradiating means 8 pass through openings in a side wall of the lower section 2 of the reaction container 1).
Furthermore, while the immersion lamps of Weben et al. are used in a fluidized bed reactor that operates under different processing conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the arrangement of immersion lamps to also perform satisfactorily in a fluidized bed reactor that operates under the processing conditions of the claimed invention, given that Noceti et al. further evidences the satisfactory use of an immersion lamp in a reactor that operates under similar processing conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 19, 23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2021/0078927 A1).
The instant “system” claims are considered apparatus claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Also, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 16, McDaniel et al. discloses system (i.e., an apparatus), wherein, in certain embodiments, the system comprises:
a single fluidized bed reactor (i.e., a suitable reactor can be a fluidized bed reactor; see paragraphs [0044], [0045], [0176]; ref. claim 9), wherein the single fluidized bed reactor contains a supported chromium catalyst (see paragraphs [0066]), and wherein the single fluidized bed reactor comprises a source of a light beam at a wavelength in the UV-visible spectrum (i.e., “… the disclosed processes can comprise contacting the hydrocarbon reactant with a fluidized bed of the solid supported chromium catalyst, and irradiating while contacting (fluidizing),” see paragraph [0045]; the irradiating can be provided by a source of a light beam in the UV-visible spectrum, see paragraph [0041]-[0042]);
a separations system configured to isolate a desired compound from a reactor effluent discharged from the single fluidized bed reactor (i.e., a system for performing any suitable separation technique, such as extraction, filtration, evaporation, distillation, or any combination thereof, for separating a desired compound, e.g., methanol as an alcohol compound, from a reaction product; see paragraphs [0057]-[0058]); and
a recycle system configured to convey unreacted components back to the single fluidized bed reactor (i.e., components of the reaction product, e.g., reactants, can be recovered and recycled back to the reactor to contact with the supported chromium catalyst again; see paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited single fluidized bed reactor, separations system, and recycle system in the system of McDaniel et al.
The system of McDaniel et al. would be capable of performing the recited functions by providing the appropriate reactants to the reactor to contact with the supported chromium catalyst and by maintaining the reactor under the required process conditions for facilitating the production of methanol. It is further noted that McDaniel et al. discloses that the system can be specifically used as a methanol production system, in which reactants comprising methane and water are made to contact with the supported chromium catalyst to produce a reaction product comprising methanol. McDaniel et al. also recognizes that subjecting the supported chromium catalyst to an oxidizing atmosphere regenerates the catalyst. (see, e.g., paragraphs [0057], [0060], [0064], [0066], [0136], [0192]-[0196]; ref. claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, McDaniel et al. discloses that, in certain embodiments, the system can further comprise an activation vessel (i.e., a calciner) configured to regenerate at least a portion of the supported chromium catalyst (see paragraph [0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an activation vessel in the system of McDaniel et al.
Regarding claim 23, McDaniel et al. discloses that, in certain embodiments, the system can further comprise more than one reactor in parallel (see paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a back-up reactor positioned in parallel with the single fluidized bed reactor in the system of McDaniel et al.
Regarding claim 27, the further limitations with respect to the processing conditions in the reactor do not impart further patentable weight (structural limitations) to the claim. In any event, McDaniel et al. discloses that, depending on the intended use, the reactor can be operated under a temperature of less than or equal to 300 °C (see paragraph [0038], [0049]); any suitable pressure (see paragraph [0046]); and a WHSV in a range of from 0.01 to 500 hr-1 (see paragraphs [0048], [0178]).
Regarding claim 28, McDaniel et al. discloses that the light beam can comprise a blue light source or a UV light source (see paragraph [0041]; also, Examples in TABLE I, in which the “Light” can be “Sun” or “Blue”).
Regarding claim 29, McDaniel et al. discloses that the light beam can comprise wavelengths above 360 nm and below 450 nm (see paragraphs [0042], [0163]). McDaniel et al. also discloses, “A wide range of wavelengths, light sources, and intensities can be used, as long as these wavelengths, light sources, and intensities are sufficient to reduce at least a portion of the hexavalent chromium species present in the supported chromium catalyst,” (at paragraph [0041]). Therefore, the specific wavelength is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise wavelength would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the wavelength of the light emitted by the source of the light beam in the system of McDaniel et al. in order to sufficiently reduce at least a portion of the hexavalent chromium species present in the supported chromium catalyst, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 17, 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2021/0078927 A1) in view of Noceti et al. (US 5,720,858 A) and Weben et al. (US 3,532,612 A).
Regarding claims 17, 21, and 22, McDaniel et al. discloses that the source of the light beam can comprise a UV lamp (see paragraph [0041]). McDaniel et al., however, fails to disclose that the source of the light beam specifically comprises: one or more immersion lamps as a source of the light beam attached to an interior surface of the reactor, or one or more internal light sources in an interior of the bed reactor, or both; or one or more immersion lamps as the source of the light beam, the one or more immersion lamps attached to a top, attached to a bottom, attached to a wall, or positioned in a wall of the reactor, or any combination thereof; or one or more internal light sources as the source of the light beam, the one or more internal light sources entering through a port positioned at a wall of the reactor.
Noceti et al. discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1) comprising a reactor (i.e., reaction chamber 16) configured to produce a reaction mixture comprising methanol from methane (i.e., from a methane supply 12) and water (i.e., from a water supply 14) in the presence of a supported catalyst (i.e., a photolytic catalyst), wherein, in operation, “… photolytic catalyst is kept suspended in the fluid via stirring, mechanical suspension, or other type of method,” (see column 3, lines 13-15). Optionally, an oxidizing atmosphere can be provided (i.e., by adding hydrogen peroxide to the reaction fluid; see column 4, lines 63-67). Noceti et al. also discloses that the reactor comprises a source of a light beam at a wavelength in the UV-visible spectrum (i.e., a light source 18; see column 4, lines 13-37); wherein, specifically, the light source is an immersion lamp attached to an interior surface that is a top wall of the reactor, and the light source is an internal light source in an interior of the reactor (i.e., the light source 18 comprises a lamp immersed in the reaction fluid 20 and fixed to the top wall of the reactor 16).
Weben et al. discloses an apparatus (see FIG. 1-2) comprising a fluidized bed reactor (i.e., a reaction container 1 having a lower section 2 defining a reaction zone containing a bed of particles fluidized by a fluidizing gas supplied by a distributor 12), wherein the fluidized bed reactor comprises a source of a light beam at a wavelength in the UV-visible spectrum (i.e., transparent sleeves 7 contain irradiating means 8 for emitting light having a wave length of 4000 angstroms (A); see Examples); wherein, specifically, the source of the light beam comprises immersion lamps as internal light sources in an interior of the reactor (i.e., the light sources are immersed in the fluidized bed; see figures); and the internal light sources enter through a port positioned at a wall of the reactor (i.e., the irradiating means 8 pass through openings in a side wall defining the lower section 2 of the reaction container 1; see FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one of the claimed sources of the light beam for the source of the light beam in the system of McDaniel et al. because the provision of an immersion lamp, positioned inside of the reactor and attached to a top wall of the reactor, would have been considered an effective arrangement for irradiating the reaction mixture containing the reactants and the catalyst with the light beam during the production of methanol, as taught by Noceti et al., and the provision of immersion lamps as internal light sources, which enter through a port positioned at a wall of the reactor, would have also been considered an effective arrangement for irradiating a fluidized bed with a light beam, as taught by Weben et al.
Regarding claim 26, McDaniel et al. discloses that, in certain embodiments, the system can further comprise an activation vessel (i.e., a calciner) configured to regenerate at least a portion of the supported chromium catalyst (see paragraph [0061]). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an activation vessel in the modified system of McDaniel et al.
Claims 18, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2021/0078927 A1) in view of Saito et al. (US 4,956,392).
Regarding claims 18 and 24, McDaniel et al. discloses that, in certain embodiments, the system can further comprise more than one reactor in parallel (see paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a back-up reactor positioned in parallel with the single fluidized bed reactor in the system of McDaniel et al.
McDaniel et al. further discloses that, in certain embodiments, the separation system can comprise a distillation column, and a distillation technique can be used to separate an alcohol compound, e.g., methanol, from the reaction product (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a distillation column in the separations system in the system of McDaniel et al. for separating methanol from the reaction product.
McDaniel et al., however, fails to disclose that the separation system further comprises condenser, wherein the condenser is configured to separate the reaction product comprising the methanol from the reactor effluent discharged from the reactor.
Saito et al. discloses an apparatus for producing methanol (see FIG. 1) comprising a fluidized bed reactor 5 containing a catalyst for the synthesis of methanol; a separations system for isolating methanol from a reactor effluent discharged from the reactor; and a recycle system (i.e., including a circulating gas line 2) for conveying unreacted components back to the reactor; wherein, specifically, the separations system comprises a condenser (i.e., a cooler 9) and a distillation device (not shown; see column 8, lines 66-68); the condenser 9 configured to separate a reaction product comprising methanol from the reactor effluent (i.e., in a liquid phase including condensed methanol, separated through line 11); and the distillation column configured to separate methanol from the reaction product (i.e., “These condensed liquids are, as required, purified in a distillation device to obtain methanol… as a final product,” see column 8, lines 66-68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide the recited condenser in the separations system in the system of McDaniel et al. because the condenser would have facilitated the separation of the reactor effluent into gaseous components including unreacted reactants and liquid components including condensed methanol, so that the gaseous components can be recycled to the reactor for further contact with the catalyst, and the liquid components can be subjected to further purification by distillation in order to recover the methanol as the final product, as taught by Saito et al.
Regarding claim 25, McDaniel et al. discloses that, in certain embodiments, the system can further comprise an activation vessel (i.e., a calciner) configured to regenerate at least a portion of the supported chromium catalyst (see paragraph [0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an activation vessel in the modified system of McDaniel et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774