FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I - claims 1 and 3-19 in the reply filed on 11 JULY 2025 is acknowledged. The nonelected claims 20-23 have been cancelled without prejudice.
Specification
The abstract is acceptable.
The title is acceptable.
Drawings
The drawings are again objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 6 (note page 9, lines 7-8 of the instant specification) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Applicant did not specify where or how the drawings were corrected to resolve this issue. Apparently, the faint dotted line 2c added to Figure 3 is intended to somehow represent the third helical bar but fails to adequately mimic the shape of the existing helical bars 2a, 2b, leading to confusion. Moreover, the reference character “2c” does not appear and is not described in the instant specification. The objection is maintained and made Final.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 4 is again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4: A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. For example, the Board has held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited “said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for” was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Claim 4 is of indeterminate scope since it is unclear what heights of the helical bars are included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes and bounds of this claim is so unclear as to obscure the specific subject matter the claim encompasses. Furthermore, since the liquid surface height (L) (assumed to of the mixing space 6. 7) is likely a variable at any given time, the recited heights of the helical bars can be deemed a reference to an object that is variable (i.e., the liquid surface height (L) in the vessel), thus claim 4 is further indefinite as relating the height (H) of the helical bars to an undetermined/unspecified variable (see MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Claim 4 was not revised in view of this rejection in the last response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
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.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the above guidelines and policy, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-19 are again rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/035207 A1 to LILJA in view of KOKOTOV et al. (US 2015/0299821 A1).
WO 2012/035207 A1 discloses the recited helical bar type mixer as seen throughout the Figures, namely a mixing arrangement for mixing solutions, wherein the mixing arrangement comprises a mixing device arranged in the mixing space 25 for rotating therein; the mixing device comprising at least two helical bars 3,4 or 11, 12, 13 supported around a shaft 2 or 14 and rising upwards from the bottom section of the mixing space 25 (Figure 2D); the helical bars being spaced from the shaft 2 or 14 and also fixed to the shaft via support spokes 5, 6, 7 or 16, 17, 18 such that an open space is created between the helical bars and the shaft. i.e., the helical bars 3, 4 are attached to the support spokes and not directly to the shaft, thus forming the recited open space as seen in Figure 2B, for example; wherein the ratio of the diameter (D) of the mixing device to the average diameter (T) of the mixing space is 0.7 - 0.77 (the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12); wherein the ratio of the height (H) of the helical bars to liquid surface height (L), that is H/L, is 0.6 - 0.9, preferably 0.8 - 0.9 as seen in Figure 2D; wherein the ratio of the height (H) of the helical bars to the diameter (D), that is H/D, is at least 1, preferably 1.5 - 2 (Page 4, lines 1-4); wherein the mixing device comprises at least three helical bars (Page 9, lines 24-31); wherein the helical bar has a round profile (Page 3, limes 18-21); wherein the supporting spoke 5, 6, or 7 is straight, first end attached to the helical bar, and second end arranged to the shaft, wherein and the angle between the spoke and the shaft is 750 - 105 preferably 85° - 95 more preferably 90° (Figures 1A, 1B); wherein the number of the supporting spokes is 6 to 12 - Figures 1A, 1B; wherein the supporting spoke has a round profile - Page 3, lines 20-21; wherein the mixing space having a diameter is of a cylindrical shape - Figure 2D; wherein the mixing space 25 is provided with one or more blocking elements 26; wherein the blocking element 26 has a shape that extends in the same direction as the shaft 14; wherein the blocking element 26 is arranged to a side wall of the mixing space 26; wherein the blocking elements comprise a baffle 26 - Figure 2D.
More specifically, WO ‘207 relates to a mixing device and method by means of which two solutions that are insoluble or poorly soluble in each other are mixed together into a dispersion. The device consists of at least three helical bars rotating upwards around a shaft and supported on it, so that the support structures between the shaft and the helical rods are set essentially in a horizontal position. The device and method are particularly suitable for mixing solvent extraction solutions used in the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals to form a dispersion.
The invention relates to a device and method enabling two solutions that are mutually insoluble or poorly soluble to be mixed together into a dispersion. The mixing device consists of at least three helical bars rotating around and supported on a shaft, so that the support structures between the shaft and helical bars are set essentially in a horizontal position. The device and method are particularly suitable for mixing the solvent extraction solutions used in the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals to form a dispersion.
In the solvent extraction method used in the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals, two mutually insoluble or poorly soluble solutions are first mixed together in a mixing stage to form a dispersion. After this the dispersion is routed to a settling section, in which the dispersion generally flows horizontally and the purpose is to separate the dispersion again into two pure layers one on top of the other. In the actual extraction stage the aqueous solution contains one or several valuable metals and impurities, and the purpose is to achieve mass transfer during the extraction stage, in other words to transfer one or more of the desired valuable metals into the organic extraction solution, leaving the impurities in the aqueous solution. In the stripping stage the organic extraction solution is contacted with another aqueous solution and the purpose is to obtain the reverse mass transfer, i.e. to transfer one or more valuable metals from the organic extraction solution into the aqueous solution, which is subsequently usually routed to metal recovery by electrowinning. In order to mix an aqueous solution and an organic extraction solution into each other in the mixing section of an extraction cell, a radial turbine is often used. Another mixer type for the extraction cell mixing space known in the prior art is a mixer consisting of tubular coils and their support arms, which is described for example in US patent publication 5,185,081 . This mixer is made up of two tubular coils rising upward and the support arms attaching the coils to the mixer shaft. The tubular coils make about two rotations around the shaft. On the basis of the drawings in the publication, it can be deduced that the pitch angle of the coils is in the region of 10 degrees. Straight support rods are an essential part of the mixer. The lower support rods are horizontal, the central rods are inclined upwards towards the shaft at an angle of about 30° and the topmost rods are inclined downwards towards the shaft at an angle of 30°. The mixer may also consist of two pairs of spiral tubes side by side.
A vertical rotation is obtained in the solution by means of the mixer in question and the support rods, particularly the topmost support rods, bring about radial mixing in the solution. The mixer also includes in its upper section a flow reverser placed around the shaft, and this enables the direction of the solution to be diverted downwards in the central part of the mixing space. It is also typical of the mixer that its diameter is 0.5 - 0.75 times the diameter of the mixing space and the height 0.6 - 0.9 times the effective height of the mixing space. The mixer is of the up-pumping type. In this way an ascending flow is formed in the mixing space on the periphery, which is turned downwards in the upper part of the space by means of the mixer towards the bottom part of the mixing space. Using and sustaining the vertical circulation evens out the mixing intensity of the mixing space. The mixer support rods bring about a droplet size distribution, especially in the upper section of the mixing space, that is not the most advantageous for forming a dispersion in solution extraction, even though it is considerably better than that obtained with a turbine or blade mixer.
An essential part of the spiral mixer known in the prior art is the support rods, which achieve radial mixing of the solution. In addition to a vertical circulation, the radial and highly turbulent mixing that occurs demands its own power, so the power number of the mixer has not been ideal. The purpose of this invention is to present a device and method for mixing into a dispersion two liquids that are poorly soluble in each other in solvent extraction connected to the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals, and the fact that it has been possible to intensify the vertical circulation flow in the mixer space by means of said device and method in comparison with the mixer accordant with the prior art.
The invention relates to a mixing device used in the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals to mix two solvent extraction solutions together in the mixing space or mixer of an extraction cell. The mixing device consists of at least three helical bars supported on the lower section of the shaft and rising upwards from the lower section, whereby the helical rods are fixed to the shaft by support rings set horizontally and horizontal curved support spokes.
According to one embodiment of the device, the pitch angle of the helical rods is 10 - 30° to the horizontal. The helical bars rise around the shaft in preferably 1 .2 - 3 rotations. The cross-section of the helical bars, support rings and support spokes is basically circular.
According to one embodiment of the device, there is a fixed join between the outer surface of the support rings and the inner surface of the helical bars.
According to one embodiment of the device, the support spokes are attached to the shaft at one end and to a support ring at the other end. The number of support rings is 3 - 6, so that the bottom end of the helical bars is supported on the lower support ring and the top end of the helical bar on the upper support ring. The number of the support rings is 1 - 4 in the middle section of the mixing device and their location in terms of elevation can be changed. According to one embodiment of the device, the ratio of the diameter of the mixing device to the diameter of the mixing space is in the region of 0.7 - 0.77. The ratio of the height of the mixing device to its diameter is preferably around 1 .2 - 4.
According to one embodiment of the device, the diameter of the helical bars is 0.03 - 0.07 times the diameter of the mixing device.
According to one embodiment of the device, the support spokes are attached to the shaft directly or by means of the shaft support structure. The support structure of the shaft is made up of a cylindrical section, to which the support spokes are fixed, a bottom cone attached to the underneath of the cylindrical part, and an upper cone attached to the upper side. One end of each support spoke is attached to the shaft or its support structure at an angle of 30 - 60° and the other end is attached to the support ring at an angle of 15 - 30°.
According to one embodiment of the device, the direction of curvature of the support spokes of the upper support ring is set counter to the direction of rotation of the mixing device.
According to one application of the device, the direction of curvature of at least the support spokes of the lower support ring is set to accord with the direction of rotation of the mixing device. According to one embodiment of the device, the direction of curvature of the support spokes of the central section support rings of the mixing device is set to accord with the direction of rotation of the mixing device.
The invention also relates to a method for mixing two solvent extraction solutions used in the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals in the mixing space of an extraction cell, whereby the organic extraction solution and aqueous solution are mixed into each other by means of a mixing device consisting of at least three helical bars placed around the shaft and supported on the shaft. The mixing device brings about a vertical circulation, in which an ascending vertical flow is formed from the periphery of the mixing space and a downward-directed flow is formed in the space inside the mixing device diameter and where the radial flows are minimized by positioning all the support members between the helical bars and the shaft horizontally.
According to one embodiment of the method, the solutions are mixed together in a mixing space, where the ratio of the height of the mixing space to the diameter is 1.2 - 4.
According to one application of the method, the flow rate of the vertical circulation is about half the flow rate of the mixing device, i.e. in the region of 0.7 - 1.7 m/s.
According to one embodiment of the method, the support members between the helical bars and the shaft consist of support rings and support spokes, whereby the number of support rings is 3-6 comprising a lower support ring, upper support ring and at least one central section support ring, the position of which in terms of elevation can be changed.
According to one embodiment of the method, a dispersion is formed in which the organic extraction solution is continuous, whereby the support ring of the central section of the mixing device is set higher than the central section of the mixing device in terms of elevation.
According to another embodiment of the method, a dispersion is formed in which the aqueous solution is continuous when the O/A ratio is over 1 , whereby the support ring of the central section of the mixing device is set lower than the central section in terms of the elevation of the mixing device.
The mixing into a dispersion of two solutions in extraction occurring in the solvent extraction mixing space or mixer in connection with the hydrometallurgical recovery of metals is one of the most important factors for successful extraction. One crucial problem in mixing is too effective mixing, which results in the solutions forming drops, making an emulsion in which the droplet size is so small that separating the solutions from one another in the extraction settling section or settler is unsuccessful or takes an unreasonable amount of time.
A device and method to be used in a solvent extraction mixing space has now been developed in accordance with this invention, which is based purely on the vertical circulation of solutions and the attempt to minimize the radial paths of the solutions in the central section of the mixer. Thus the mixing intensity in the mixer is made very uniform and low throughout the mixer, since the generation of localized eddies is no longer sought. The mixing device and method allow the adjustment of the droplet size distribution of the dispersion to the most favorable range for both the occurrence of mass transfer and solution separation. Uniform mixing also decreases the formation of crud. Since mixing is very uniform without local eddies, the mixing device can be used as the mixing space mixer for even larger extraction cells. Technically it is advantageous to increase the height of the mixing space in relation to its diameter and the mixer accordant with the invention can be adapted for these dimensions. It is also beneficial for the formation of an even-sized dispersion that it can be operated at a low mixer rotation speed, i.e. a maximum of 4 m/s, and still achieve quite a high vertical circulation flow rate, which is about half the mixer rotation speed, in other words in the region of 0.7 - 1.7 m/s.
The advantage of uniform mixing is that this can be implemented at a lower mixing power than mixing accordant with the prior art, in which some of the power of the mixer is used for radial mixing. Consequently, the power number of the mixer now developed is lower than that of a mixer accordant with the prior art. Another advantage worth mentioning of the mixer now developed is the fact that it enables the formation of a good dispersion of two solvent extraction solutions also in the kind of mixing space whose shape clearly deviates from that presented in the prior art. In a solution accordant with the prior art, the height of the mixing space is more or less the same as its diameter, but with the mixing device accordant with the invention it is possible to achieve a good dispersion also in a mixing space where the ratio of height to diameter is around 1 .2 - 4 and correspondingly the ratio of the mixer height to its diameter is similar. The lower the surface tension of the liquid-liquid system, the lower the turbulence degree at which the solutions are dispersed. If stripping occurs in an alkaline range, the mixing intensity to be used should be very low, to avoid generating a permanent emulsion. The contamination of solutions in solvent extraction has the effect that, in mixing, the droplet size of a dispersion with a mixing intensity accordant with the prior art.
The mixing device accordant with the invention is described in more detail in the attached drawings. Figure 1 A presents a side view of a mixing device 1 accordant with the prior art and 1 B a 3D image of it. The mixer accordant with the invention is compared with this mixer above and in the following examples. Mixer 1 comprises two ascending helical tubes 3 and 4 positioned around shaft 2, which tubes are attached to the shaft by means of lower support arms 5, central support arms 6 and upper support arms 7. The lower support arms are radial and the central and upper ones are at an angle to the horizontal, as described above. As also stated above, the helical tubes bring about an ascending flow from the sides of the mixing space and a downward flow on the inner side of the helical tubes. It has also been found that the mixer support arms bring about almost horizontal flows, which have been found harmful when the mixing together of two separate solutions in solvent extraction is concerned.
Figure 2A shows a side view of one mixer according to the invention, Figure 2B presents the same mixer as seen from above, Figure 2C presents the same thing as a 3D image, and Figure 2D presents the same mixer located in the mixing space of an extraction cell. Mixer 10 consists of at least three helical bars 1 1 ,12,13, which are located around shaft 14 to ascend from the lower part of the shaft upwards. In order for the flow to be as smooth as possible, the cross-section of the helical bar is preferably circular. Even though the text talks of a helical bar, this term also means a helical tube. The helical bars are connected to the shaft by means of support members, which are made up of support rings and support spokes. The lower ends of the helical bars are supported securely in the lower section of the mixer to lower support ring 15 positioned on the horizontal and the upper ends of the bars correspondingly to upper support ring 16. In addition, the central section of the mixer is also equipped with at least one central section support ring 17. The number of support rings is at least three, but depending on the construction of the mixer there may be 3 - 6 support rings. In turn, the support rings are connected to the shaft with horizontal curved spokes 18. The support rings like the support spokes are either round bars or tubes, i.e. their profile is essentially circular. The diameter of the support ring is of the same magnitude as that of the helical bar, and the diameter of the support spoke is 0.6 - 1 times the diameter of the helical bar. At the juncture of the support rings and helical bars a secure join is formed between the outer surface of the support ring and the inner surface of the helical bar, for instance by welding.
The number of helical bars in the mixer is a minimum of three, but the number is preferably between 3 and 5 depending on the size of the mixer and the bars are located symmetrically to rise around the shaft. The pitch angle of the bars is selected to be between 10 - 30° to the horizontal. In Figures 2 the angle of pitch is 14.3°. In the case shown in Figs 2A and 2C the bars encircle the shaft for one and half rotations, but the number of rotations is selected according to requirements and may be for instance between 1 .2 and 3.
The curved spokes 18 of the support rings are horizontal like the support rings and the spokes can be fixed directly to shaft 14 or the fixing point can be equipped with a shaft support structure 19, which consists of a cylindrical section 20, to which the support spokes are fixed, and an upper cone 21 and a lower cone 22 attached to it. The cone sections of the joining point reduce the flow resistance of the joining point, so that the vertical flow pattern brought about by the mixer remains powerful. The joins of the support spokes as well as the joins to both the shaft and the support structure are secure joins, made for example by welding or in some equivalent fashion. The number of support spokes 18 in the drawing is 5, but it may vary as required between for instance 3 and 6. The spokes are curved and they are connected at the first end 23 either to the shaft or the cylindrical section 20 of the shaft support structure at 30 - 60° and at the second end 24 to the support structure at an angle of 15 - 30°. The curvature of the support spokes may also be changed if necessary. The direction of curvature of the support spokes is selected to support the vertical circulation of the flow. Accordingly, the direction of curvature of the spokes of upper support ring 16 is set counter to the rotation direction of the mixer and the direction of at least the spokes of the lower support ring are set to accord with the rotation direction of the mixer. Generally, the direction of curvature of the spokes other than those of the upper support ring is also in accord with the direction of rotation of the mixer. As a consequence of the direction of curvature of the spokes, the flow in the lower section of the mixer is laminar and the spokes of the upper support ring cause turbulence.
It is characteristic of the mixing device accordant with the invention that the number of helical bars is at least three, placed symmetrically around the shaft, whereupon the mixing together of the extraction solutions occurs as evenly as possible. Another essential factor is that all the support structures of the helical bars are horizontal and the support spokes are made curved, so that radial flows occurring in the mixing space are minimized. The degree of turbulence in mixing extraction solutions, in other words, intensity, can be controlled for example by changing the number of helical bars and/or changing the angle of pitch, by changing the ratio of the mixer height to its diameter or by changing the curvature of the support spokes. In Figure 2D, mixer 10 of Figure 2A is located in mixing space or mixer 25. The mixing space is equipped with baffles 26 and cover 27. The ratio of the mixer diameter to the diameter of the mixing space is preferably between 0.7 - 0.77. In turn, the diameter of the helical bars of the mixer is around 0.03 - 0.07 times the diameter of the mixer. The direction of rotation of the mixer is up-pumping. The ratio of the height of the mixing space to its diameter may vary. In Figure 2D it is 1 .2, but it may be as much as around 4, whereupon either the pitch angle of the helical bars and/or the number of rotations around the shaft is increased.
The mixer according with the invention is located near the bottom of the mixing space so that the bottom clearance is around 0.07 - 0.1 1 times the diameter of the mixer. The term surface clearance means the distance between the mixer and the mixing space cover (or liquid surface) and the upper section of the mixer. The surface clearance is preferably double the corresponding bottom clearance, so that the ratio of the height of the mixer to the diameter of the mixing space is of the same magnitude as the ratio of the diameter of the mixer to the diameter of the mixing space or at most 20% greater than this.
Figures 3 and 4 present two variations of the mixer accordant with the invention, which illustrate that the location of the central section support ring or support rings 17 in terms of elevation may be changed in accordance with the extraction situation. Thus these variants can be used when it is particularly important to ensure a certain type of dispersion and its continuity for example in the start-up stage of an extraction process. In the structure shown in Figure 3 the upper and lower support rings of mixer 10 are located in the same way as in Figure 2A, but central support ring 17 with its spokes is set much higher than the central section of the mixer in terms of elevation. This structure favors generation of the form of dispersion in which the organic solution is continuous and the aqueous solution is as droplets in the organic solution. The structure shown in Figure 3 is advantageous for instance in a situation where crud has been generated, which should be pushed out of the extraction solution by means of water droplets. In the structure accordant with Figure 4 center support ring 17 with its spokes is set much lower than the central section of the mixer in terms of elevation. This structure favors generation of the form of dispersion in which the aqueous solution is continuous and the organic solution as droplets in the aqueous solution. The structure accordant with Figure 4 can be used for example in a situation where it is advantageous to keep the aqueous solution continuous, even though the ratio of organic solution to aqueous solution (O/A) is over 1 and as high as a value of 3.
Figures 5A and 5B present one mixer variation, which is particularly suitable for a mixing space where the height of the mixing space is considerably greater than its diameter, for example in the range of 1 .6 - 2.2. In the example case shown in the drawings, the angle of pitch of the helical bars is around 22°, which is much greater than in the mixer of Figure 2. The helical bars encircle shaft 14 for one and a half rotations as in Figure 2.
Figure 6 presents yet another mixer alternative, in which the ratio of the mixer's height to its diameter may be as much as around 4, and even this is not the absolute upper limit. In this case the ratio of the height of the mixing space to the diameter is also of the same magnitude as that of the mixer. The technically limiting factor is mainly the length of shaft 14. The helical bars of the mixer encircle the shaft for three rotations and their angle of pitch is around 22°. The number of support rings is raised, so that in addition to lower support ring 15 and upper support ring 16, the structure has three support rings 17 located in the central section of the mixer.
However, WO 2012/035207 A1 to LILJA does not disclose the ratio D/T is in a range of 0.38 - 0.47, wherein the ratio D/T is selected in range of 0.40 - 0.45, or wherein the average diameter (T) of the mixing space is at least 1000 mm.
KOKOTOV et al. discloses an analogous helical bar/blade type mixer device 320 or 720 located in a mixing space 321 (Figure 7) and teaches wherein the parameter related to the ratio D/T (D = diameter of the mixing device and T = diameter of the mixing space) is selected within the recited range of 0.38 - 0.47, wherein the ratio D/T is selected in range of 0.40 - 0.45 (per ¶ [0099], [0136]); wherein the parameter related to the average diameter (T) of the mixing space is at least 1000 mm, preferably 1000 - 5000 mm [0119].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mixer of WO ‘207/LILJA such that the ratio D/T and the diameter (T) is within the recited ranges as taught by KOKOTOV et al. since this reference teaches that these parameters are preferred for such a helical type mixer in a mixing space to thereby achieve suitable operation and mixing outcomes ¶ [0099], [0119], [0136].
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/035207 A1 to LILJA in view of KOKOTOV et al. (US 2015/0299821 A1).
WO 2012/035207 A1 to LILJA in view of KOKOTOV et al. (US 2015/0299821 A1) disclose the recited helical bar type subject matter as explained above but assuming, arguendo, that the recited parameters throughout the claims (such as the recited ratios, diameters, angles, quantity, etc.) are lacking, with respect to the limitation of these parameters, the examiner has found that the specification contained no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are quite arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, since where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of these parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the apparatus defined by the disclosures of WO 2012/035207 A1 in view of KOKOTOV et al. with the configurations and/or dimensions recited in the claims which are considered at most optimum choices, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification may result in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normannet et al., 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 66 USPQ 314. More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
No probative evidence is of record to demonstrate that the dimensions and/or other variables of the invention are significant or are anything more than one of numerous dimensions a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for purposes of merely changing the configurations and/or dimensions to obtain different results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 148 USPQ 459.
Accordingly, the examiner argues that these parameters are rather arbitrary and thus obvious over the prior art per MPEP 2144.05(II)(III).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that a reason to optimize prior art parameters may be found in a PHOSITA’s desire to improve on the prior art. In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.’’).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/035207 A1 in view of KOKOTOV et al. (US 2015/0299821 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of NIEDERMAN et al. (US 3352543 A).
WO 2012/035207 A1 in view of KOKOTOV et al. do not show the truncated cone mixing space. NIEDERMAN et al. discloses an analogous helical bar type mixer 35 or 45 disposed within a mixing space that possess a shape that is cylindrical at 10 or a truncated cone at 20 - compare Figures 1 and 2.
Since NIEDERMAN et al. clearly suggests that a helical bar type mixer can be disposed within either a cylindrical or truncated cone mixing space, to provide the mixer of WO 2012/035207 A1 in view of KOKOTOV et al. [having a cylindrical mixing space] with such a truncated cone mixing space or to substitute one such mixing space for another is well within the realm of obviousness as an art recognized alternative shape for a mixing space [of cylindrical shape or truncated cone shape] that houses a helical bar type mixer.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although the claim is reasonably clear in scope, in line 2, “the mixing space” should apparently be --a mixing space-- for ultimate clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Again, no claims stand allowed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 22 DEC 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner’s remarks during the interview summary of 6 OCT 2026 are maintained and thus incorporated by reference for future prosecution and/or appeal.
The drawing objection and the 112(b) rejection of claim 4 (reference to a variable) are maintained.
Applicant argues in the response filed 22 DEC 2025 that since the helical blades of KOKOTOV are solid, the mass thereof is much greater than the mixing device of claim 1 and also “presents different design and operating parameters”. It is unclear design and operating parameters are being referred to since the combination of WO 2012/035207 A1 in view of KOKOTOV et al. meet all the claimed design parameters and the claims are devoid of any operating parameters and such operational parameters would apparent not constitute structural limitations:
As held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized [operated] is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." See MPEP 2115.
APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Applicant then comments that claim 1 has been amended to further distinguish from the solid blade portions shown in Kokotov by requiring a space to be created between the helical bars and the shaft. That is fantastic, but this feature of an open space is clearly present in the base reference to WO 2012/035207 A1 to LILJA as explained in the prior art rejections. Thus, the revisions to claim 1 do not distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant concludes by stating “Kokotov would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the D/T ratio in LILJA to something similar to that disclosed in Kokotov, since the two mixing devices are so different in that Kokotov includes solid blades to impact the mixing characteristics of the mixing device as compared to the helical bars of claim 1 and LILJA. The selection of the ratio of the diameter of the mixing space relative to the diameter of the mixing space is dependent on the mixing characteristics of the mixing device. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art when designing a mixing device having helical bars spaced from the shaft by support spokes would not look to a mixing device having solid helical blades as in Kokotov since the mixing characteristics of the helical blades in Kokotov are nothing like the helical bars required by claim 1.” Applicant’s position on this point is considered to be speculative attorney's argument unsupported by objective technical evidence on the issue. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
Moreover, these concluding remarks on page 9 of the response fail to recognize that "[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court and this court … have repeatedly held that the motivation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation that inspired the patent owner. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he skilled artisan need not be motivated to combine [a prior art reference] for the same reason contemplated by the [inventor]”); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not required that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304 (CCPA 1976). “[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
Accordingly, Applicant has not persuaded the examiner, as during the interview, that those of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to adapt the claimed D/T ratio taught by the helical blade mixer of KOKOTOV to the quite analogous helical bar mixer of LILJA, thus achieving the claimed mixing device. Contrary to Applicant’s intimations in the remarks, this examiner is not relying upon the solid blade geometry of KOKOTOV at all, only to the teaching in KOKOTOV of the claimed D/T ratio that is a characteristic of a helical blade mixer known in the art as taught by KOKOTOV. Doing so would achieve the predictable results in a mixing space of suitable operation and mixing outcomes via a helical mixer having the recited D/T ratio per ¶ [0099], [0119], [0136] of KOKOTOV.
From MPEP 2143(c):
Use of Known Technique To Improve Similar Devices (Methods, or Products) in the Same Way
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a ‘‘base’’ device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an ‘‘improvement (i.e., the helical mixer of LILJA);’’
(2) a finding that the prior art contained a ‘‘comparable’’ device (method, or product that is not the same as the base device) that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention (i.e., the helical mixer of KOKOTOV);
(3) and a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known ‘‘improvement’’ technique in the same way to the ‘‘base’’ device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art since the rationale to support a conclusion that amended claim 1 and the dependent claims would have been obvious is that a technique of enhancing a particular class of devices (a helical mixer) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of enhancement to a ‘‘base’’ device (i.e., applying the D/T ratio of the KOKOTOV helical mixer to the LILJA helical mixer in a mixing space) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
In view of the above, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Per Rule 1.116(b)(3): “An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.” Thus, an amendment after final lacking such showing will be denied entry.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION. ANY RESPONSE FILED AFTER THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL REJECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MPEP 714.12 AND 714.13.
NOTE: The examiner of record follows the interview after-final policy set forth in MPEP 713.09:
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview [agenda] should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (emphasis added)
The agenda will be made of record per PTO policy.
New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application (an interview has been held) or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews per the after-final polices above 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 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 23 APRIL 2026
Prosecution Insights