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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Amendments
Applicants amendments to the claims filed 4 February 2026 have been entered and considered for this Action. All prior claim objections and rejections under 35 USC § 112 are withdrawn.
It is noted that the claim status of indicator of claim 86 is listed as “Previously presented” when it should indicate “Currently amended”.
Claim Interpretation
As previously set forth, many of the claims contain multiple ranges that define the claim limitations, separated by the conjunction “or”. In each of these cases it is interpreted that values falling within any of the recited ranges will meet the claim limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 73-79, 81-86, 93-94, and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohr (US 5,766,930) in view of Filmer (US 9,968,945 B1).
Regarding claim 73, Kohr teaches a method for processing a sulphide ore containing metal values (recovering mineral values from a sulphide mineral ore; column 9, lines 22-23) in which the ore is comminuted (crushed; column 28, line 66) and classified into an oversize fraction (-0.62 cm) and a fine fraction (-0.31 cm; column 27, lines 66-67). The fact that 100% of the ore was crushed to a size less than 6.2 mm with 53% of it smaller than 3.1 mm (column 27, line 66 – column 28, line 1) means that it was comminuted to a P80 of between 3.1 and 6.2 mm, which meets the claimed limitation of a P80 in the range of 0.5 mm to 15 mm. The fine fraction was then further ground such that 95% passes a 0.075 mm sieve (75 um; column 28, lines 1-3), meeting the limitation of a fraction with a particle size P80 of less than 0.25 mm suitable for fine floatation.
Kohr also teaches the fraction suitable for fine flotation being subjected to fine flotation (the sample was floated; column 28, line 24-25) to produce a concentrate product containing metal values (sulfide concentrate containing 6.5 ppm of gold; column 28, lines 28 and 44) and a residue (tail from the Wemco float; column 28, line 30).
Kohr further teaches the concentrate, which contains iron sulphides, being blended with the oversize fraction to obtain a blended ore (dry pyrite concentrate was sprayed over the surface of the coarse ore; column 28, line 45); and, the blended ore being stacked (mixture of concentrate on ore support was placed into a 3 inch column; column 28, lines 50-51) and subjected to a leach process in which the ore is irrigated with a leachant (liquid introduced to the top of the column throughout the experiment; column 28, line 62-63) to obtain a pregnant leachate containing metal values (cause the production of a bioleachate off solution, recovering the desired metal values from the bioleachate off solution; column 9, lines 32-34). While Example 1 of Kohr does not use a heap leach process, Kohr does teach that heap leach method can be used in place of the column in Example 1 (After the metal sulfide particles are coated or spread onto the plurality of substrates, a heap is formed with the coated substrates or the coated substrates are placed within a tank. The metal sulfide particles on the surface of the plurality of coated substrates are then biooxidized to liberate the metal values of interest; column 8, lines 43-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heap leach process instead of the column leach used in Example 1, as Kohr teaches this as an alternate method to achieve the same result.
While Kohr teaches the concentrates from the first floatation can be subjected to a scavenging floatation, Kohr does not teach that the residue is subjected to a scavenging floatation. However, Filmer teaches that the residues (tailings) of a first floatation may also be subjected to further stages of floatation to recover valuable particles that did not float the first time (column 9, lines 23-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the scavenging floatation of Filmer to the method of Kohr and to add these to the blended ore for biooxidation, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recover more of the metal values in the ore.
Regarding claim 74, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where the ore contains sulphides containing copper, nickel, zinc and gold metal values (column 9, line 36 and column 27, line 64).
Regarding claim 75, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73, where Kohr teaches the blending the concentrate from the fine floatation, which contains iron sulphides, with the oversize fraction to obtain a blended ore (the sulphide concentrate; column 28, lines 31-33 and 41-49). The modification taught by Filmer is to also perform a scavenging sulphide floatation and to mix both of these with the oversize fraction in order to recover more metal values in the ore, as analyzed for claim 73 above. Modified Kohr therefore teaches all the limitations of claim 75.
Regarding claim 76, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where Kohr teaches that all of the ore is comminuted (crushed; column 28, line 66) and classified into an oversize fraction (-0.62 cm) and a fine fraction (-0.31 cm; column 27, lines 66-67). The fact that 100% of the ore was crushed to a size less than 6.2 mm with 53% of it smaller than 3.1 mm (column 27, line 66 – column 28, line 1) means that it was comminuted to a P80 of between 3.1 and 6.2 mm, which meets the claimed limitation of a P80 in the range of from 1 mm to 10 mm.
Regarding claim 77, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where Kohr teaches that the oversize fraction from the classification has a particle size of up to 6.2 mm (-6.2 cm fraction; column 27, line 67), which meets the limitation of the instant claim where the particle size may be up to 15 mm.
Regarding claim 78, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where Kohr teaches the fraction suitable for fine floatation in Example having a particle size P95 of 0.075 mm (column 28, lines 2-3), which lies just outside the claimed range. However, Kohr also teaches that fraction suitable for fine floatation (solid material to be biotreated) should be ground to a maximum particle size of 0.25 mm (250 um; column 12, line 18) but not smaller than about 0.075 mm (75 um) in order to prevent excessive dust problems (column 12, lines 46-47). Kohr therefore teaches a range of sizes for the fraction suitable for fine floatation that is 0.025 mm to 0.25 mm, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.25 mm.
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). The courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed range of sizes merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 79, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where in one example Kohr teaches the fraction suitable for fine floatation comprising 53% of the comminuted ore and the oversize fraction comprising 46% of the comminuted ore, but is otherwise silent on values for this ratio.
However, Kohr also teaches that the size of the oversize fraction should be greater than about 0.3 cm (column 8, line 3); that larger particles of the oversize fraction increase void volume and improve air and nutrient access during the biooxidation; and, that a good compromise between void volume and reactor capacity is a particle size of greater than 0.6 cm and less than 2.54 cm (column 11, lines 24-33).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both the size of the oversize fraction and the ratio of the oversize (coarse) fraction to the fine fraction would be functions of time and effort put into the comminution process, with longer comminution resulting in smaller particles and a larger fraction of a fine fraction. A less extensive comminution process would therefore achieve both a particle size larger than the -0.62 cm fraction in Example 1, and a smaller proportion of the fraction suitable for file floatation than that generated in example 1 (53%), while also saving time and effort on the comminution process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore found it obvious to optimize the comminution conditions by routine experimentation to in order to achieve a desired balance of the size of the oversize fraction and time and effort spent on comminution, and resulting in changes in the relative amount of the fraction suitable for fine floatation, including into the claimed range of between 10 and 35% by weight of the comminuted ore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize these variables in order to save time and expense on the comminution process while also generating a larger size of the coarse fraction to allow for greater air flow in the heap leach process, as taught by Kohr.
Regarding claim 81, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73, and also teaches in Example 1 that the concentrate containing iron sulphides contains 8.8% of the total ore (column 28, line 41). Kohr goes on to teach in Example 2 that the method can also afford a concentrate that contains only 4.5% of the -0.31 cm fraction ore (column 29, line 49); Kohr does not disclose the ratio of the -0.31 cm fraction to the +0.31 cm fractions in this instance, but without making any assumption we can deduce that this corresponds to a fraction of the whole ore that must fall in the range of 0 % (corresponding to the fine fraction being almost none of the whole ore) to 4.5% (if the entire ore is the fine fraction) of the whole ore. Thus, Kohr teaches a range for the amount of material in the concentrate that is somewhere between 4.5%-8.8% and 0-8.8% of the mass of the whole ore. Each of these ranges either overlaps with or contains the instantly claimed range of 4% to 6% of the mass of the ore.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior a prima facie case of obviousness exists and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed range of weight percents merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 82, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where the iron sulfide concentrate has a particle size less than about 0.25 mm (250 um; column 17, lines 41) and greater than about 0.038 mm to 0.025 mm (column 17, lines 49-50), corresponding to a range of 0.025 mm to 0.25 mm, which overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior a prima facie case of obviousness exists and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed range of sizes merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 83, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where the concentrate containing iron sulphides has a sulphur grade of 15.7% by weight (column 29, line 52), which falls in each of the ranges recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 84, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where the blended ore is prepared from 140 g of concentrate having a sulphur content of 15.7% and 560 g of coarse ore having a sulphur content of 0.18% (column 29, lines 51-56). As a result, this blended ore will have a sulfur content of 3.28%,
140
g
15.7
%
+
560
g
0.18
%
560
g
+
140
g
=
3.28
%
which is greater than the 1% required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 85, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73, where Kohr also teaches that concentrate particles that are too small will tend to clump when mixed with the oversize fraction and thereby reduce airflow and bacteria migration during biooxidation in the heap (column 17, lines 49-55). Kohr also teaches that there are costs associated with grinding the particles to smaller size (column 17, line 61-62) and that a preferable size is in the range of 0.106 mm to 0.075 mm (column 17, lines 56-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by the routine experimentation the size distribution of the particles, including into the claimed range where particles with a size less than 0.075 mm comprise less than 10% by weight of the blended ore.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to decrease clump formation, improve air flow in the heap, and keep grinding costs low.
Regarding claim 86, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 85 where Kohr also teaches that the air and fluid are important to the heap leach biooxidation process (need exists…for a heap bioleaching technique that can be used to biooxidize precious metal bearing refractory sulfide ores and which provides improved air and fluid flow within the heap; column 6, lines 61-64) and that flow rates and loading capacity of the heap can be balanced by controlling the particle size of the substate in the heap (column 18, lines 45-55). Kohr does not discuss specific values of irrigation rate or permeability.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the particle size of the substate (size of the oversize fraction) to obtain a desired irrigation permeability through the heap in the method of modified Kohr, including to a size such that the stacked blended ore (heap) would have an irrigation permeability of greater than 0.5 L/m2/h. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kohr teaches that flow rate and loading capacity can be balanced by modifying particle size.
Regarding claims 93, 94, and 96, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73 where the heap leach process is a biooxidation leach process (a heap is formed with the coated substrates …the metal sulfide particle on the surface of the plurality of coated substrates are then biooxidized to liberate the metal values of interest; column 8, lines 45-49), as required by claim 93. Kohr further teaches that the heap is inoculated with microorganisms that may be thermophilic bacteria such as Sulfolobus (column 19, lines 34-47; column 4, lines 11-12 describes these as thermophilic) and that the heap is irrigated with a leachant, where the pH of the leachant is 1.8 (liquid introduced to the top of the column throughout the experiment was pH 1.8; column 28, line 62-63), meeting the further limitations of claims 94 and 96.
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohr (US 5,766,930) and Filmer (US 9,968,945 B1), as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (“On the native and induced floatability of coal and pyrite “in Processing and Utilization of High-Sulfur Coals V, B. K. Parekh and J. G. Groppo, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers (1993). p. 171-188).
Regarding claim 80, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 73, where Kohr also teaches it is pyrite from the ores that is concentrated in the floatation (dry pyrite concentrate; column 28, line 45) and that the collector in the floatation can be xanthate (column 28, line 23). Kohr and Filmer are silent on the pH of the scavenging sulphide float.
However, Jiang teaches that ore-pyrite has the highest floatation recoveries at pHs less than about 5 across a range of particle sizes (Jiang, p. 181, Fig. 8, reproduced below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a scavenging sulfide float in the method of modified Kohr at a modified pH less than 5, as taught by Jiang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the recovery of the sulfide in the float.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed range of a modified pH of about 4 to 5 merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the pH range of less than 5 taught by the cited prior art.
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohr (US 5,766,930) and Filmer (US 9,968,945 B1), as applied to claim 94 above, and further in view of Dew et al. (US 6,833,020 B1).
Regarding claim 95, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 94, as analyzed above. Kohr also teaches that the leachant has a pH of 1.8 and that sulfuric acid is used to adjust the pH in the bacterial culture. Therefore it would have been obvious to also use sulfuric acid to adjust the pH of the irrigated leachant in the biooxidation heap leach.
Kohr further teaches that the sulfuric acid generated from their process can be recycled in another leaching process (one possible use for the excess acid is in a copper oxide ore leaching process; column 20, line 40-42) to avoid costs associated with neutralization and disposal (column 20, line 51), but does not teach using sulphuric acid containing raffinate from a solvent extraction process in their method.
However, Dew also teaches recovery of metal values from sulphide ores with bioleaching (abstract) and that that raffinate from a solvent extraction may be used in an associated bioleaching or heap leaching process instead of neutralizing and disposing of it (column 13, lines 30-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use raffinate from a solvent extraction process, as taught by Dew, with the sulfuric acid leachant in the method of modified Kohr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reuse a waste product and avoid costs associated with its disposal, as taught by Kohr.
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohr (US 5,766,930) and Filmer (US 9,968,945 B1), as applied to claim 94 above, and further in view of Hutchins et al. (US 4,729,788).
Regarding claim 97, modified Kohr teaches the method of claim 94, and Kohr further teaches hat the temperature of the heap (reactor; column 13, lines 61-62) should be maintained to promote growth of the microorganisms (column 14, lines 28-32). Kohr does not teach any specific temperatures.
However, Hutchins, whose patent Kohr cites and incorporates by reference (column 3, lines 8-12), teaches that the Sulfobobus bacteria promote oxidation of sulfide minerals at temperature of at least about 45 °C and to about 90 °C (column 3, lines 61 and column 4, lines 12-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sulfobobus bacteria, as suggested by Kohr, and to keep the internal temperature of the heap between 45 °C and 90 °C, as taught by Hutchins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to keep the bacteria at a temperature where they can grow and promote oxidation of the sulfide minerals, as taught by Kohr and Hutchins.
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art”, as the claimed temperatures do here, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore the claimed range of temperatures, between 50-85 °C, represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the temperature range, 45-90 °C, in the cited prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4 February 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant recites on pages 8-10 many features of the instant invention, but these arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. It is further noted that Kohr identifies many of the same features recited by Applicant, such as increased acid generation (col. 30, lined 29-24) and improved reaction rate (col. 11, lines 23-34), as advantages of their method.
Applicant argues that Kohr is not interested in the metals values contained in the leachate solution, and is only interested in the metals left behind (e.g. at p. 12, ¶ 1-2 and p. 13 ¶ 2). While it is acknowledged that recovering metals remaining behind may be a primary feature of Kohr’s disclosure (abstract), it is certainly not the only one. As previously identified, and included in Applicant’s reply (p. 11, bottom), Kohr discloses that their invention results in “the production of a bioleachate solution, [and] recovering the desired metal values from the bioleachate off solution” (col. 9, lines 33-34). This is a feature that is distinct from that in which the biooxidized metal sulfide particles are contacted with a lixiviant to recover the metals that are not leached (col. 9, lines 7-21), and Kohr teaches using their invention for both purposes. Kohr further discusses this feature at col. 26, lines 5-15:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant additionally argues, p. 12-13, against the combination of Kohr with Filmer, or that it would not result in the instantly claimed invention. In particular, Applicant argues that Filmer does not provide specific process sequences or the functional integration instantly claimed. However, instant claim 73’s limitations with respect to the scavenging floatation are only that “a residue which is subjected to a scavenging sulphide float to produce a concentrate containing metal sulphides values and iron sulphides” and that this concentrate is blended with the oversize fraction, followed by leaching to obtain a pregnant leachate containing metal values.
Kohr teaches recovery of metals values from metal sulphide particles recovered from a floatation that are coated on coarse ore, and Filmer teaches that the residues (tailings) of a first floatation may also be subjected to further stages of floatation to recover valuable particles that did not float the first time (column 9, lines 23-27), i.e., Filmer teaches a method to recover more of the metal sulphides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize recovery of the metal values, and Filmer teaches that an additional scavenging float is one way to accomplish that. One of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore been motivated and able to incorporate a second, scavenging floatation from the teaching of Filmer, and to combine the metal-rich fraction from this floatation with the concentrate product containing metal values from the fine floatation in order to maximize the overall recovery of metals. The combination of Kohr and Filmer is therefore considered appropriate, and the combination of Kohr and Filmer would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the instantly claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, p. 13, are predicated on the assertion that Kohr and Filmer do not teach all the limitations of claim 73. Those arguments were not persuasive, and so the rejections of all the dependent claims are also maintained.
On page 14, Applicant cites In re Omeprazole while arguing that the inventors have identified a previously unknown problem and provided a solution to that problem. However, Kohr has already identified problems with existing bioreactors (col. 3, lines 2-13) and that the blending of fine metal sulphides on a coarse ore allows for increased reaction rates and for the recovery of metal values from the sulphides (col. 11, lines 1-23; col. 26, lines 5-15) (and Filmer teaches a way to increase metal recovery). Therefore, both a problem and the solution were recognized in the prior art, and the arguments are unpersuasive.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kohr (US 6,083,730) discloses a process substantially similar to that of Kohr (US 5,766,930) but focused primarily on the extraction of metal values rather than the removal of unwanted materials from the ore.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights