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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 April 2026 has been entered.
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 1, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0010213) in view of Driver et al. (US 8,105,481).
Regarding claim 1, the reference Sun et al. teaches a system, suitable for the treatment of a low chloride content pyrolysis oil (19) (which may suitably be referred to as a liquid plastic-derived oil since the pyrolysis oil is derived from a solid plastic waste) to produce a treated pyrolysis oil (21) (i.e., treated liquid plastic-derived oil) having <10 ppm chloride content (see paras. [0042]-[0044]; [0047]; Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a pretreating section (105) comprising a pretreating system (105A, 105B) having one or more reactors configured to receive a liquid plastic-derived oil (15) having a first chloride contamination level (see paras. [0034]; [0044]; [0047]; Fig. 1), wherein the one or more reactors (105A, 105B) comprises a sorbent material configured to reduce the level of chloride in the liquid plastic-derived oil and to generate a treated liquid plastic-derived oil (21) having a second contamination level that is less than the first contamination level (see paras.[0044]; [0046]; [0047]).
The reference Sun et al. further teaches that the provision of the sorbent material in the one or more reactors is more suitable and economical only as a final polish, i.e., when used to bring chloride content in the liquid plastic-derived oil (pyrolysis oil) from 200-400ppm down to <10ppm (see para. [0047]). The reference Sun et al. further teaches that the one or more reactors may be operated at a temperature from about 100° C. (212° F.) to about 300° C. (572° F.) and pressure from about 0.069 MPa (gauge) (10 psig) to about 2.07 MPa (gauge) (300 psig) (see para. [0046]).
The reference Sun et al. is, however, silent with respect to the sorbent material comprising a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type-X zeolitic molecular sieve having a pore diameter of greater than 9 Å.
The reference Driver et al. teaches a sorbent material for reducing organic halide contamination level in a hydrocarbon product having an organic halide content from 50 to 4000 ppm to less than 40 ppm (see Abstract; col. 2, lines 21-30). The reference Driver et al. further teaches that the sorbent material suitable for such application includes a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type-X zeolite having a pore size from 4 to 16 Å (see col. 4, lines 36-40; claim 3). The reference Driver et al. also teaches that the halide contaminated hydrocarbon product can be contacted with the molecular sieve under absorption conditions which can include a temperature of from 32° F. (0° C.) to 1000° F (538° C.) and pressure of 1 psi to 1000 psi (see col. 4, lines 55-60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type-X zeolite having a pore size from 4 to 16 Å, including a type-X zeolite having a pore diameter of greater than 9 Å as claimed by applicant, as a sorbent material in the one or more reactors (105) of Sun et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, since the reference Driver et al. teaches that type-X zeolite having a pore size from 4 to 16 Å may suitable be employed in application were it is desired to reduce halide concertation in a hydrocarbon product having a halide content from 50 to 4000 ppm to less than 40 ppm (see col. 2, lines 21-30; col. 4, lines 15-23 and lines 36-43).
Regarding claim 7, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. disclose the system, further comprising a preheating system disposed upstream from and fluidly coupled to the pretreating system (105A, 105B), wherein the preheating system comprises one or more heating devices configured to heat the liquid plastic-derived oil (see Sun et al.: para. [0044]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. disclose the system, wherein the sorbent material further comprises intermediate pore size zeolites including ZSM-5 (i.e., a zeolite containing 10 member ring channels, as defined in the specification para. [0042]) (see col. 4, lines 36-54; claim 4).
Regarding claim 11, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. disclose the system, wherein the one or more reactors comprises a plurality of reactors arranged in parallel (see Sun et al. para. [0047]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. disclose the system further comprising a cleaning system fluidly coupled to the one or more reactors, wherein the cleaning system is configured to provide one or more cleaning fluids to the one or more reactors and to regenerate the sorbent material (see Driver et al. col. 5, lines 11-27).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Driver et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2019/0161683).
Regarding claim 2, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. do not disclose the system further comprising a hydroprocessing section disposed downstream from and fluidly coupled to the pretreating section, wherein the hydroprocessing section comprises a hydrotreater comprising one or more hydrotreating catalysts, wherein the hydrotreater is configured to receive the treated liquid plastic-derived oil and hydrogen gas, to remove a second portion of the one or more contaminants from the treated liquid plastic-derived oil, and to generate a hydrotreated liquid product having a third contamination level that is less than the second contamination level.
The reference Narayanaswamy et al. teaches hydroprocessing section (30-60) for hydroprocessing a liquid plastic-derived oil (21), wherein the hydroprocessing section (30-70) comprises a hydrotreater (30) comprising one or more hydrotreating catalysts, wherein the hydrotreater is configured to receive the liquid plastic-derived oil and hydrogen gas, to remove one or more contaminants from the liquid plastic-derived oil, and to generate a hydrotreated liquid product having a lower contamination level (see paras. [0026]; [0056]; [0058]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sun et al., Driver et al. and Narayanaswamy et al., and arranged the hydroprocessing section (30-70) taught by Narayanaswamy et al. downstream of the pretreating section (105) of Sun et al. and Driver et al., since the reference Narayanaswamy et al. suggest for further processing of the liquid plastic-derived oil in the hydroprocessing section (30-70) to hydrocrack long chain molecules, hydrodealkylate alkylated aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogenate olefins components, and further dechlorinate chloride compounds which may be present in the liquid plastic-derived oil (see paras. [0026]; [0048]; [0056]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the references Sun et al., Driver et al. and Narayanaswamy et al. disclose the system, wherein the hydrotreater (30) comprise a second sorbent material (see Narayanaswamy et al.: paras. [0058]; [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, the references Sun et al., Driver et al. and Narayanaswamy et al. disclose the system, further comprising a hydrocracker (60) disposed in the hydroprocessing section (30-70) downstream from the hydrotreater (30), wherein the hydrocracker (60) is configured to receive the hydrotreated liquid product and to generate a hydrocracked liquid product (see Narayanaswamy et al.: paras. [0081]; [0083]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the references Sun et al., Driver et al. and Narayanaswamy et al. disclose the system, further comprising a conversion unit (50) disposed downstream from and fluidly coupled to the pretreating system, wherein the conversion unit (50) is configured to receive the hydrocracked liquid product and to generate ethylene, propylene, butylene, and combinations thereof from the hydrocracked liquid product (see Narayanaswamy et al.: paras. [0102]-[0105]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the references Sun et al., Driver et al. and Narayanaswamy et al. disclose the system, further comprising a conversion unit (50) disposed downstream from and fluidly coupled to the pretreating system, wherein the conversion unit (50) is configured to receive the treated liquid plastic-derived oil and to generate ethylene, propylene, butylene, and combinations thereof from the treated liquid plastic-derived oil Narayanaswamy et al.: paras. [0102]-[0105]; Fig. 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Driver et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gorawara et al. (US 10,450,245).
Regarding claim 9, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the sorbent material has a surface area of between approximately 200 m2/g and approximately 800 m2/g, an alkali metal content between 1% and 40%, a Si/Al of between 1 and 5, or a combination thereof.
The reference Gorawara et al. teaches a sorbent material for removing contaminants including chlorides from hydrocarbon streams (see Abstract). The reference Gorawara et al. teaches that the sorbent material comprises a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type zeolitic molecular sieve (i.e., zeolite X) (see col. 8, lines 21-42), wherein the sorbent material has a surface area in the range of 100 to 400 m2/g (see col.3, lines 54-65), an alkali metal content in an amount at least 30% of the zeolite's ion exchange capacity (see col. 1, lines 23-26), and Si/Al ratio of between about 2.0 to about 2.5 (see col. 2, lines 64-65; col. 8, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sun et al. and Driver et al. to include a sorbent material as taught by Gorawara et al. in the pretreating section (105), and arrived at the instantly claimed system, since the reference Gorawara et al. teaches that the such a modification allows for removing contaminants including chlorides, CO2, COS, H2S, AsH3, methanol, mercaptans and other S- or O-containing organic compounds from olefins, paraffins, aromatics, naphthenes and other hydrocarbon streams (see Abstract, col. 1, lines 18-26).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Driver et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Priegnitz et al. (US 2009/0326309).
Regarding claim 10, the references Sun et al. and Driver et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the sorbent material has a mole sieve average crystallite size from between approximately 5 nanometers (nm) and 100 microns (µm). The reference Priegnitz et al. teaches that sorbent material having a mole sieve average crystallite size from about 500 nanometers (nm) to about 1.5 microns (µm) provided for adsorbent having improved adsorbent capacity and/or mass transfer properties (see paras. [0007]- [0008]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sorbent material of Sun et al. and Driver et al. such that the sorbent material has a mole sieve average crystallite size as suggested by Priegnitz et al., since the reference Priegnitz et al. teaches that sorbent material having a mole sieve average crystallite size from about 500 nanometers (nm) to about 1.5 microns (µm) provide improved adsorbent capacity and/or mass transfer properties (see paras. [0007]- [0008]).
Claims 22-26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0010213) in view of Hamad et al. (US 2011/0253595), Driver et al. (US 8,105,481) and Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2019/0161683).
Regarding claims 22-25, and 29, the reference Sun et al. teaches a system, suitable for the treatment of a low chloride content pyrolysis oil (19) (which may suitably be referred to as a liquid plastic-derived oil since the pyrolysis oil is derived from a solid plastic waste) to produce a treated pyrolysis oil (21) (i.e., treated liquid plastic-derived oil) having <10 ppm chloride content (see paras. [0042]-[0044]; [0047]; Fig. 1), the system comprising: a pretreating section (105) comprising a pretreating system (105A, 105B) having one or more reactors configured to receive a liquid plastic-derived oil (15) having a first chloride contamination level (see paras. [0034]; [0044]; [0047]; Fig. 1), wherein the one or more reactors (105A, 105B) comprises a sorbent material configured to reduce the level of chloride in the liquid plastic-derived oil and to generate a treated liquid plastic-derived oil (21) having a second contamination level that is less than the first contamination level (see paras.[0044]; [0046]; [0047]). The reference Sun et al. further teaches that the provision of the sorbent material in the one or more reactors is more suitable and economical only as a final polish, i.e., when used to bring chloride content in the liquid plastic-derived oil (pyrolysis oil) from 200-400ppm down to <10ppm (see para. [0047]). The reference Sun et al. further teaches that the one or more reactors may be operated at a temperature from about 100° C. (212° F.) to about 300° C. (572° F.) and pressure from about 0.069 MPa (gauge) (10 psig) to about 2.07 MPa (gauge) (300 psig) (see para. [0046]).
The reference Sun et al., however, does not specifically disclose a pretreating system having one or more reactor trains configured to receive a liquid plastic-derived oil having one or more contaminants and a first contamination level, wherein the one or more reactor trains comprises a plurality of reactors, each reactor in the plurality of reactors having a sorbent material comprising a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type X zeolitic molecular sieve having a pore diameter of greater than 9 Å and configured to remove a first portion of the one or more contaminants from the liquid plastic-derived oil and to generate a treated liquid plastic-derived oil having a second contamination level that is less than the first contamination level; and a conversion unit disposed downstream from the pretreating section, wherein the conversion unit comprises one or more reactors configured to receive the treated liquid plastic- derived oil and to convert the treated liquid plastic-derived oil into ethylene, propylene, butylene, and combinations thereof.
The reference Hamad et al. teaches a system for the treatment of whole crude oil (see paras. [0021]-[0022]; [0029]), comprising: a pretreating section (14) comprising a pretreating system having one or more reactor trains configured to receive a whole crude oil having one or more contaminants and a first contamination level, wherein the one or more reactor trains comprises a plurality of reactors, each reactor in the plurality of reactors having a sorbent material comprising a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type zeolitic molecular sieve (e.g., type Y zeolites) and configured to remove a first portion of the one or more contaminants from the whole crude oil and to generate a treated whole crude oil having a second contamination level that is less than the first contamination level (see paras. [0032]; [0033]; [0036]; claim 22 ).
It would having obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pretreating section (105) of Sun et al. to include a pretreating system having one or more reactor trains in configuration as claimed by applicant, because, as evidenced by the reference Hamad et al., it is typical in the art to provide a sorbent material in a plurality of fixed bed reactors arranged in a combination of parallel and series arrangement for the purpose of removing contaminants from a feed stream by adsorption in semi-continuous or continuous operation (see paras. [0032]; [0033]; [0036]).
The references Sun et al. and Hamad et al. are, however, silent with respect to utilizing a sorbent material comprising a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type-X zeolitic molecular sieve having a pore diameter of greater than 9 Å as a sorbent material in each reactor of the plurality of reactors.
The reference Driver et al. teaches a sorbent material for reducing organic halide contamination level in a hydrocarbon product having an organic halide content from 50 to 4000 ppm to less than 40 ppm (see Abstract; col. 2, lines 21-30). The reference Driver et al. further teaches that the sorbent material suitable for such application includes a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type-X zeolite having a pore size from 4 to 16 Å (see col. 4, lines 36-40; claim 3). The reference Driver et al. also teaches that the halide contaminated hydrocarbon product can be contacted with the molecular sieve under absorption conditions which can include a temperature of from 32° F. (0° C.) to 1000° F (538° C.) and pressure of 1 psi to 1000 psi (see col. 4, lines 55-60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type-X zeolite having a pore size from 4 to 16 Å, including a type-X zeolite having a pore diameter of greater than 9 Å as claimed by applicant, as a sorbent material in the one or more reactor trains of Sun et al. and Hamad et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, since the reference Driver et al. teaches that type-X zeolite having a pore size from 4 to 16 Å may suitable be employed in application were it is desired to reduce halide concertation in a hydrocarbon product having a halide content from 50 to 4000 ppm to less than 40 ppm (see col. 2, lines 21-30; col. 4, lines 15-23 and lines 36-43).
The references Sun et al., Hamad et al., and Driver et al. are, however, silent with respect to arranging a conversion unit disposed downstream from the pretreating section, wherein the conversion unit comprises one or more reactors configured to receive the treated liquid plastic-derived oil and to convert the treated liquid plastic-derived oil into ethylene, propylene, butylene, and combinations thereof.
The reference Narayanaswamy et al. teaches hydroprocessing section (30-70) for hydroprocessing a liquid plastic-derived oil (21), wherein the hydroprocessing section (30-70) comprises a hydrotreater (30) comprising one or more hydrotreating catalysts, wherein the hydrotreater (30) is configured to receive the liquid plastic-derived oil and hydrogen gas, to remove one or more contaminants from the liquid plastic-derived oil, and to generate a hydrotreated liquid product having a lower contamination level (see paras. [0026]; [0056]; [0058]; [0060]; Fig. 1); a hydrocracker (60) disposed in the hydroprocessing section (30-70) downstream from the hydrotreater (30), wherein the hydrocracker (60) is configured to receive the hydrotreated liquid product and to generate a hydrocracked liquid product (see Narayanaswamy et al.: paras. [0081]; [0083]; Fig. 1); and a conversion unit (50) disposed downstream from and fluidly coupled to the hydrotreater (30), wherein the conversion unit (50) is configured to receive the treated liquid plastic-derived oil and to generate ethylene, propylene, butylene, and combinations thereof from the treated liquid plastic-derived oil Narayanaswamy et al.: paras. [0102]-[0105]; Fig. 1). The reference Narayanaswamy et al. further teaches that the hydrotreater (30) can comprise zeolitic molecular sieves such as ZSM-5, ZSM-11, and Y zeolites (see para. [0060]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the hydroprocessing section (30-70) taught by Narayanaswamy et al. downstream of the pretreating section (105) of Sun et al., Hamad et al. and Driver et al., since the reference Narayanaswamy et al. suggest for further processing of the liquid plastic-derived oil in the hydroprocessing section (30-70) to hydrocrack long chain molecules, hydrodealkylate alkylated aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogenate olefins components, and further dechlorinate chloride compounds which may be present in the liquid plastic-derived oil (see paras. [0026]; [0048]; [0056]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, the reference Driver et al. teaches that the sorbent material can further comprise intermediate pore size zeolites including ZSM-5 (i.e., a zeolite containing 10 member ring channels, as defined in the specification para. [0042]) (see col. 4, lines 36-54; claim 4).
Regarding claim 30, the references Hamad et al. and Driver et al. teach that the system can be provided with a cleaning system fluidly coupled to the plurality of reactors, wherein the cleaning system is configured to provide one or more cleaning fluids to the plurality of reactors and to regenerate the sorbent material (see Hamad et al.; paras. [0022]; [0030]; Driver et al. col. 5, lines 11-27).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Hamad et al., Driver et al., and Narayanaswamy et al. as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Priegnitz et al. (US 2009/0326309).
Regarding claim 27, the references Sun et al., Hamad et al., Driver et al., and Narayanaswamy et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the sorbent material has a mole sieve average crystallite size from between approximately 5 nanometers (nm) and 100 microns (µm). The reference Priegnitz et al. teaches that sorbent material having a mole sieve average crystallite size from about 500 nanometers (nm) to about 1.5 microns (µm) provided for adsorbent having improved adsorbent capacity and/or mass transfer properties (see paras. [0007]-[0008]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sorbent material of Sun et al., Hamad et al., Driver et al., and Narayanaswamy et al. such that the sorbent material has a mole sieve average crystallite size as suggested by Priegnitz et al., since the reference Priegnitz et al. teaches that sorbent material having a mole sieve average crystallite size from about 500 nanometers (nm) to about 1.5 microns (µm) provide improved adsorbent capacity and/or mass transfer properties (see paras. [0007]- [0008]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. in view of Hamad et al., Driver et al., and Narayanaswamy et al. as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Gorawara et al. (US 10,450,245).
Regarding claim 28, the references Sun et al., Hamad et al., Driver et al., and Narayanaswamy et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the sorbent material has a surface area of between approximately 200 m2/g and approximately 800 m2/g, an alkali metal content between 1% and 40%, a Si/Al of between 1 and 5, or a combination thereof.
The reference Gorawara et al. teaches a sorbent material for removing contaminants including chlorides from hydrocarbon streams (see Abstract). The reference Gorawara et al. teaches that the sorbent material comprises a faujasite (FAU) crystal framework type zeolitic molecular sieve (i.e., zeolite X) (see col. 8, lines 21-42), wherein the sorbent material has a surface area in the range of 100 to 400 m2/g (see col. 3, lines 54-65), an alkali metal content in an amount at least 30% of the zeolite's ion exchange capacity (see col. 1, lines 23-26), and Si/Al ratio of between about 2.0 to about 2.5 (see col. 2, lines 64-65; col. 8, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Sun et al., Hamad et al., Driver et al., and Narayanaswamy et al. to include a sorbent material as taught by Gorawara et al. in the pretreating section (105), and arrived at the instantly claimed system, since the reference Gorawara et al. teaches that the such a modification allows for removing contaminants including chlorides, CO2, COS, H2S, AsH3, methanol, mercaptans and other S- or O-containing organic compounds from olefins, paraffins, aromatics, naphthenes and other hydrocarbon streams (see Abstract, col. 1, lines 18-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights