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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites:
13. The bioprocessing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the foam collector is a floating foam collector comprising a flat portion and a protruding portion comprising the opening, extending from the flat portion, wherein the flat portion contacts a fluid medium filled in the bioreactor. Emphasis added.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a fluid medium” refers to the recitation of “a fluid medium” of claim 12. To overcome this rejection, claim 13 could be amended to read:
13. The bioprocessing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the foam collector is a floating foam collector comprising a flat portion and a protruding portion comprising the opening, extending from the flat portion, wherein the flat portion contacts [[a]] the fluid medium filled in the enclosure
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strimple et al., US 2016/0289091 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Strimple teaches a foam intercept system, which reads on the claimed “sterile foam breaking system.” See Strimple [0001]. Note that the description of the claimed foam breaking system as being “sterile” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. Note also that the foam intercept system is capable of operating under sterile conditions, at least because the liquid received in basin 56 (containing the foam) could be sterile as the liquid could be heated by flue gas in absorber 30 and the liquid could contain components (such as heavy metals) that inhibit living organisms from growing. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
The foam intercept system comprises a foam intercept device 66, which reads on the “foam collector.” See Strimple Fig. 1, [0034]. The foam intercept device 66 comprises an “opening,” which is the opening that connects to draw pipe 68. Id. at Fig. 2, [0035]. The foam intercept device 66 is configured to be disposed in effluent seawater ES that generates foam, which reads on “the foam collector is configured to be disposed in a source which generates foam.” Id. at Fig. 2, [0034].
The foam intercept system also comprises suction pumps 62, 64 coupled to the foam intercept device 66. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034]. The suction pumps 62, 64 read on the “non-contact suction unit.” The suction pumps 62, 64 are “non-contact type,” as claimed, at least because they do not directly contact the effluent seawater ES.
The suction pumps 62, 64 are configured to transfer foam via the open base 104 from the effluent seawater ES, as claimed. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034].
The suction pumps 62, 64 are also capable of breaking a portion of foam to generate a first quantity of liquid droplets when foam (containing liquid) is transferred through piping 72, as at least some foam could break when moving through piping 72. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0038]; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
The foam intercept system also comprises a foam retention tank 78, coupled to the pumps 62, 64, where foam is destroyed or dissipated. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0039]. The foam retention tank 78 reads on the “foam breaking unit coupled to the non-contact suction unit.”
The foam retention tank 78 is capable of receiving a remaining portion of the foam and the first quantity of liquid droplets from the pumps 62, 64, as claimed, because liquid with foam in it is transferred into the retention tank 78 via the pumps 62, 64. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0039].
The foam retention tank 78 is also capable of breaking the remaining portion of the foam to generate a second quantity of liquid droplets, as claimed, because foam 78 within the foam retention tank 78 is dissipated or destroyed. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0039].
The pumps 62, 64 are also capable of transferring liquid from the foam retention tank 78 (the “first quantity of liquid droplets and the second quantity of liquid droplets”) from the foam retention tank 78 to a treatment tank 128 (the claimed “collection vessel”), as claimed, because the pumps 62, 64 are in fluid communication with the foam retention tank 78 and the treatment tank 128.
The foam intercept device 66 (the “foam collector”) is configured to float on the surface 88 of the effluent seawater ES (the claimed “fluid medium”) filled in a basin 56 (the “enclosure”), such that, in use, the foam intercept device 66 is located at a liquid gas interface within the basin 56, as claimed. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034].
PNG
media_image1.png
813
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Strimple teaches that the foam intercept device 66 (the “foam collector”) is a floating foam collector comprising a flat base 104 (the “flat portion”) and a “protruding portion” formed by walls 106 and top 110 protruding from the base 104 with the “opening” in the top 110 connected to draw pipe 68. Id. The “protruding portion” extends from the flat base 104, as claimed. Id.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strimple et al., US 2016/0289091 A1 in view of Matsushima, US 2014/0305788 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Strimple teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Strimple differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to the material used to manufacture the foam intercept device 66 (the “foam collector”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the foam intercept device 66 is made of plastic. But the foam intercept device 66 comprises a float frame 102. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034]. Also, Matsushima teaches a float that can be made from a material such as stainless steel or a plastic material. See Matsushima [0052]. It would have been obvious for the float frame 102 of Strimple to be manufactured from plastic because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strimple et al., US 2016/0289091 A1 in view of Studer et al., US 2019/0126170 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Strimple teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Strimple differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the foam retention tank 78 (the “foam breaking unit”) comprising the claimed structure.
But the foam retention tank 78 is designed to receive foam so that it can be destroyed or dissipated, with separated liquid DF transferred into treatment tank 128. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0039].
With this in mind, Studer teaches a defrothing device 100 comprising a rectangular box 110 (a “tube”) with a filter screen 140 (a “mesh”) and plurality of bubble-breaking features 160 (“serrations”) within the box 110. See Studer Fig. 1, [0014]– [0021]. Similar to the cyclone 5 of Hirose, the defrothing device 100 of Studer also comprises a froth inlet 310, a liquid outlet 320 and a vent 340. Id. at Fig. 5, [0023]–[0025].
PNG
media_image2.png
445
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the defrothing device 100 of Studer in place of the foam retention tank 78 of Strimple because the defrothing device 100 of Studer performs a similar function as the foam retention tank 78 of Strimple, and therefore this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B. With this modification, the defrothing device 100 reads on the “foam breaking unit.”
Regarding claim 7, Studer teaches that the box 110 (the “tube”) comprises a cover layer 150 that can be made of plastic. See Studer Fig. 1, [0019].
Regarding claim 8, Strimple as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Strimple differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the foam retention tank 78 (the “foam breaking unit”) comprising an agitator, as claimed. (Note that the specification says that the agitator may be a “static agitator.” See Spec., p. 11.) But the foam retention tank 78 is designed to receive foam so that it can be destroyed or dissipated, with separated liquid DF transferred into treatment tank 128. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0039].
With this in mind, Studer teaches a defrothing device 100 comprising a filter screen 140, which is a static agitator because it breaks bubbles by abrading the bubbles against the rough porous surface of the filter screen 140. See Studer [0027]. Similar to the foam retention tank 78 of Strimple, the defrothing device 100 of Studer also comprises a froth inlet 310, a liquid outlet 320 and a vent 340. Id. at Fig. 5, [0023]–[0025]. It would have been obvious to use the defrothing device 100 in place of the foam retention tank 78 because the defrothing device 100 performs a similar function as the foam retention tank 78, and therefore this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
With this modification, the defrothing device 100 reads on the “foam breaking unit” and the filter screen 140 reads on the “agitator.”
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strimple et al., US 2016/0289091 A1 in view of Studer et al., US 2019/0126170 A1 and in further view of Shibata et al., US 4,985,054.
Regarding claim 5, Strimple as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained above.
Strimple as modified differs from claim 5 because Studer is silent as to the defrothing device 100 (the “foam breaking unit”) comprising a heater coupled to an external surface of the box 110 (the “tube”), as claimed.
But Shibata teaches a foam-bursting device comprising a casing 10 and a heating element 5 that is installed over the top of the casing 10, with the heating element being beneficial because it elevates the temperature of the gas in the gas bubbles altering the surface tension so that the bubbles are burst. See Shibata Fig. 4, col. 1, ll. 45–50, col. 2, ll. 46–57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a heating element on an external surface of the box 110 of Studer to assist in breaking foam by elevating the temperature of the gas in the gas bubbles altering the surface tension so that the bubbles are burst.
Regarding claim 9, Studer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Studer differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the foam retention tank 78 (the “foam breaking unit”) comprising an agitator with a heater coupled to an external surface of the agitator, as claimed. (Note that the specification says that the agitator may be a “static agitator.” See Spec., p. 11.)
But the foam retention tank 78 is designed to receive foam so that it can be destroyed or dissipated, with separated liquid DF transferred into treatment tank 128. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0039].
With this in mind, Studer teaches a defrothing device 100 comprising a filter screen 140, which is a static agitator because it breaks bubbles by abrading the bubbles against the rough porous surface of the filter screen 140. See Studer [0027]. Similar to the foam retention tank 78 of Strimple, the defrothing device 100 of Studer also comprises a froth inlet 310, a liquid outlet 320 and a vent 340. Id. at Fig. 5, [0023]–[0025]. It would have been obvious to use the defrothing device 100 in place of the foam retention tank 78 because the defrothing device 100 performs a similar function as the foam retention tank 78, and therefore this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
With this modification, the defrothing device 100 reads on the “foam breaking unit” and the filter screen 140 reads on the “agitator.”
Strimple as modified differs from claim 9 because Studer is silent as to the filter screen 140 (the “agitator”) comprising a heater coupled to an external surface. But Shibata teaches a foam-bursting device comprising a casing 10 and a heating element 5 that is installed over the top of the casing 10, with the heating element being beneficial because it elevates the temperature of the gas in the gas bubbles altering the surface tension so that the bubbles are burst. See Shibata Fig. 4, col. 1, ll. 45–50, col. 2, ll. 46–57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a heating element on an external surface of the filter screen 140 to assist in breaking foam by elevating the temperature of the gas in the gas bubbles altering the surface tension so that the bubbles are burst.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strimple et al., US 2016/0289091 A1 in view of Studer et al., US 2019/0126170 A1 and in further view of Galliher et al., US 2008/0068920 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Strimple as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained above.
Strimple as modified differs from claim 6 because Studer is silent as to the box 110 (the “tube”) being made of stainless steel. But Studer teaches that the box 110 comprises a cover layer 150 that can be formed of a metal or plastic. See Studer Fig. 1, [0019]. Also, Galliher teaches a bioreactor comprising a reusable support structure made from materials including stainless or polymers. See Galliher [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cover layer 150 of Studer to be made of stainless steel because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al., US 5,476,573 in view of Strimple et al., US 2016/0289091 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Hirose teaches a fermentation culture apparatus, which reads on the claimed “bioprocessing system.” See Hirose Fig. 2, col. 6, ll. 44–48.
The fermentation culture apparatus comprises a culture tank 1 that generates foam 3. See Hirose Fig. 2, col. 6, ll. 46–55. The culture tank 1 reads on the “bioreactor which generates foam.”
The fermentation culture apparatus also comprises a system for defoaming the foam 3 coupled to the tank 1 comprising the underside of the top of culture tank 1, exhaust ducts 4, 10, 6, cyclones 5, 7 and recirculating ducts 11, 12. See Hirose Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 55–67, col. 6, l. 46–col. 7, l. 19.
The foam is transferred to cyclones 5, 6 by some mechanism for moving the foam from tank 1 into the cyclones. See Hirose Fig. 2, col. 6, l. 46–col. 7, l. 31.
The cyclone 5 reads on the “foam braking unit” because it is used for defoaming. See Hirose Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 5–9. The cyclone 5 is coupled to the mechanism that moves foam from tank 1 through cyclones 5, 7. Id.
PNG
media_image3.png
875
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hirose differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the system for defoaming the foam 3 coupled to the tank 1 comprising a foam collector comprising an opening wherein the foam collector is disposed in the tank 1 (the “bioreactor”) and wherein the foam collector is configured to float on a fluid medium filled in the tank 1 (the “enclosure”) such that, in use, the foam collector is located at a liquid gas interface within the tank 1. Hirose also differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the mechanism for moving foam from tank 1 into the cyclones 5, 6 comprising a non-contact suction unit, as claimed.
But Strimple teaches a foam intercept system comprising a basin 56 with a foam intercept device 66 that floats on the surface of liquid in the basin 56 to suction foam from the liquid. See Strimple Fig. 1, [0034]–[0035]. The foam intercept device 66 comprises an “opening,” which is the opening that connects to draw pipe 68. Id. at Fig. 2, [0035]. The foam intercept device 66 is connected to suction pumps 62, 64 that suction foam from the basing 56 for transfer into foam retention tank 78 (where foam is destroyed) and then into treatment tank 128. Id. at Fig. 2, [0034], [0039]. The suction pumps 62, 64 are “non-contact” at least because they do not directly contact liquid in the basin 56. The foam intercept device 66 (the “foam collector”) is configured to float on the surface 88 of the effluent seawater ES (the claimed “fluid medium”) filled in a basin 56 (the “enclosure”), such that, in use, the foam intercept device 66 is located at a liquid gas interface within the basin 56. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034].
The foam intercept device 66 of Strimple is beneficial because it comprises a float frame that is adjustable to alter the distance between the surface of the liquid in the basin 56 and an opening in the base 104 for drawing in foam, so that the opening in the base 104 is maintained a suitable distance above the surface of the liquid to reduce the amount of liquid drawn into the foam intercept device 66. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0006], [0034].
PNG
media_image1.png
813
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the foam intercept device 66 of Strimple as the mechanism for collecting foam and sending the foam to cyclone 5 of Hirose to provide the benefit of maintaining a suitable distance above the surface of the liquid to reduce the amount of liquid drawn into the cyclone 5. It also would have been obvious to use the pumps 62, 64 of Strimple as the mechanism for moving foam from the tank 1 of Hirose into the cyclones 5, 7 because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
With these modifications, the foam intercept device 66 of Strimple reads on the “foam collector.” The opening the foam intercept device 66 connected to draw pipe 68 reads on the “opening.” The foam intercept device 66 is disposed in the tank 1 of Hirose (the claimed “bioreactor” and the “enclosure”), as claimed, because the foam intercept device 66 floats on liquid within the basin 56. The foam intercept device 66 is configured to float on the liquid within the tank 1, such that, in use the foam intercept device 66 is located at a gas liquid interface within the enclosure, as claimed. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034].
Also, the pumps 62, 64 of Strimple read on the “non-contact unit coupled to the” foam intercept device 66. The pumps 62, 64 are configured to transfer foam by the “opening” (connected to draw pipe 68) from the tank 1 of Hirose, as claimed, because the pumps 62, 64 suction foam from the basin 56 through the opening and into the draw pipe 68. See Strimple Fig. 2, [0034]–[0035]. The pumps 62, 64 are also capable of braking a portion of the foam to generate a first quantity of liquid droplets, as claimed, because some of the foam suctioned by the pumps 62, 64 to move through exhaust duct 4 (and into the cyclones 5, 7) could break into liquid droplets. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). The cyclone 5 of Hirose (the “foam breaking unit”) is coupled to the pumps 62, 64 of Strimple, as claimed, because the pumps 62, 64 provide the motive force to move foam into the cyclone 5. The cyclone 5 is capable of receiving the remaining portion of foam and the first quantity of liquid droplets from the pumps 62, 64, as claimed because the cyclone 5 is immediately downstream from the exhaust duct 4, as seen in Fig. 2 of Hirose. The cyclone 5 is also capable of breaking the remaining portion of the foam to generate a second quantity of liquid droplets, as claimed, because the cyclone 5 is intended for defoaming. See Hirose Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 5–10. The pumps 62, 64 are capable of transferring the first quantity of liquid droplets and the second quantity of liquid droplets from the cyclone 5 to the tank 1 (the “bioreactor”) as claimed, via recirculating duct 11. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 6, ll. 46–55.
With respect to the limitation of the foam breaking system being “sterile,” this limitation fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use and material worked on rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114; MPEP 2115. The “foam breaking system” of Hirose as modified is capable of being sterile because the cyclones 5, 7 and pumps 62, 64 attached to them form a substantially closed system with the tank 1, as seen in Fig. 2 of Hirose.
Regarding claim 13, Hirose in view of Strimple teaches that the foam intercept device 66 of Strimple (the “foam collector”) is a floating foam collector comprising a flat base 104 (the “flat portion”) and a “protruding portion” formed by walls 106 and top 110 protruding from the base 104 with the “opening” in the top 110 connected to draw pipe 68. Id. The “protruding portion” extends from the flat base 104, as claimed. Id. The flat base 104 contacts a fluid medium in the tank 1 of Hirose (the “bioreactor”), as claimed, as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is allowable over Strimple because, while the interior of the foam retention tank 78 (the “foam breaking unit”) could read on the claimed “pressure chamber,” the reference is silent as to the foam retention tank 78 comprising a one directional flow control valve disposed upstream of the foam retention tank 78 with a pressure sensor upstream of the interior of the tank 78 and a proportional pinch flow control valve disposed downstream of the interior of the tank 78 with a control unit coupled to the pressure sensor and the proportional pinche valve with the control unit configured to control the pinch valve based on an output from the pressure sensor. Instead, the retention tank 78 is illustrated as having an open top (which would render a pressure sensor inoperable for measuring pressure buildup in the tank 78) and the reference merely indicates that fluid flows from retention tank 78 to treatment tank 128 through pipe 78a without a pinch control valve or controller.
Claim 11 is allowable because it depends from claim 10.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
Note, however, that claim 13 remains rejected for being indefinite for the reasons stated above.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12, the current rejection combines Hirose and Strimple. Strimple was used in combination with Hirose to reject claim 13 in the Non-Final Rejection dated December 28, 2025, and claim 12 is amended to include similar subject matter as claim 13. The Applicant has failed to address why it would have been non-obvious to combine Hirose and Strimple. Therefore, the Applicant’s remarks are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olsen, US 7,449,051 B2 (a froth removing device but without the claimed floating foam collector); Galliher et al., US 2008/0068290 A1 (a foam control device for a bioreactor, but without the claimed floating foam collector).
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights