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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 19, 2026. Applicant amended previously independent claim 5 and currently independent claim 18 such that the linking feature of claim 1 is inherently or implicitly contained within those claims. The amended dependent claims 11-12 and newly presented dependent claims 21-25 are subsequently acknowledged for examination. The examiner finds the applicants’ arguments to be persuasive with the presented amended and newly drawn claims.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US PGPub 20090065736) in view of Liu et al (US PGPub 20180345297) and Kouznetsov (US Pat No 9149814).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches froth flotation and a chemically modified composition used in froth flotation and reverse flotation separation applications “(e.g., in ore beneficiation)” to enhance the separation of materials (paragraphs [0150-153]). Johnson discloses that the chemically modified composition can function as a collector in such applications, particularly in purification or recovering mineral values from impurities and the like. Johnson provides a method of chemically modifying maleated unsaturated fatty acids, the salts thereof and compositions containing them, to be used as collectors in ore beneficiation. A maleated unsaturated fatty acid has generic composition XOOC-CH(R)-CH2-COOY. In paragraphs [0016-18], Johnson describes the composition of the unsaturated fatty acids which can be unsaturated C18 (thus case where R is C18 alkenyl), a tall oil fatty acid, or a tall oil rosin acid. Further, in paragraph [0021], Johnson describes the chemical modification which can be any one or more of “(1) ricinoleic acid, (2) a polyamine, (3) an amino alcohol, (4) an alkynyl alcohol (acetylenic alcohol) selected from propargyl alcohol, 1-hexyn-3-ol, 5-decyne-4,7-diol, oxyalkylated propargyl alcohol and mixtures thereof, (5) morpholine, (6) a fatty imidazoline, (7) a phosphate ester, (8) a metal chelator, (9) an amino acid, (10) a xanthate, (11) a thiophosphate ester, (12) hydroxamic acid or hydroxamic acid precursors, (13) a sulfonate, and (14) a sulfate”. In paragraphs [0104-106], Johnson describes suitable amino alcohols which are alkanolamines. The invention is considered an emulsifier (paragraph [0041]) thus a surfactant. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the listed components of Johnson to arrive at the claimed invention pertaining to the surfactant of (a) whereby R, X, and Y are satisfied for use in a froth flotation collector composition. Johnson is silent on a solvent and hydroxycarboxylic acid. Liu also provides a froth flotation collector composition which can include a beneficiating agent that comprise a hydroxy fatty acid composition (paragraphs [0015-18] and [0095-0101]). A hydroxy fatty acid is a hydroxycarboxylic acid. Froth flotation collectors are known in the art as a way to beneficiate ores. Beneficiating agents are necessary for treating ores before any subsequent downstream processing as it helps remove impurities (paragraphs [0011-12]). In paragraph [0078], Johnson also discloses that the inclusion of this agent improves purity and/or yield. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a beneficiating agent in the froth flotation collector composition to remove impurities in treated ores and improve yield. Additionally, Liu states the agent can also be provided as a salt which is to be understood as its conjugate base and provided as any combination thereof (paragraphs [0061 and 0064]). The salts can also comprise cations selected from Na, K, ammonium and any combination. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to further include the conjugate base or a mixture thereof as an obvious alternative source for producing a collector composition. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide the compound disclosed by Johnson as a salt accordingly as a known alternative starting reagent for froth collector compositions as informed by Liu. Liu is also silent on a solvent. Kouznetsov also describes froth flotation collector compositions which can include oil miscible organic solvents (Col 8 lines 20-31). The solvents facilitate the emulsion formation when the formulation is added to slurry and depresses the freeze point of the composition. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include an organic solvent to facilitate emulsion and depress the freezing point. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “A froth flotation collector composition comprising a hydroxycarboxylic acid, a conjugate base thereof, or a mixture thereof, a solvent, and a surfactant comprising: (a) a compound having the formula XOOC-CH(R)-CH2-COOY, wherein R is a substituent selected from C10-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl, and X and Y are independently selected from hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, ammonium, alkylammonium, and alkanolammonium; (b) an ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid ester comprising an alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons; or (c) a combination of one or more (a) and one or more (b)”.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Liu discloses in paragraph [0019] and examples 1, 3, 5 and 6, that the beneficiating agent is ricinoleic acid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use ricinoleic acid as a known beneficiating agent for froth flotation collection. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 wherein the hydroxycarboxylic acid is ricinoleic acid”.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Liu also describes inclusion of a sulfonated fatty acid with the beneficiating agent. The sulfonated fatty acid can be considered a surfactant. In reference to a weight ratio of inclusion for the beneficiating agent (the hydroxycarboxylic acid) to the sulfonated fatty acid (a surfactant), Liu discloses a ratio of about 0.01 to about 99, 0.05:1.2, 0.1:1, 0.2:1.0, 0.3:1.0, 0.4:1.0, or about 0.66. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the weight ratio range to arrive at the invention as claimed when including the beneficiating agent of Liu to the surfactant of Johnson in a froth flotation collector composition. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 wherein the ratio of the hydroxycarboxylic acid to the surfactant is 5:1 to 1:5 by weight”.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Kouznetsov discloses in Col 8 lines 20-31 that the solvents can be alcohols, ketones, carboxylic acids or esters of carboxylic acids, aliphatic, aliphatic, terpenic, paraffinic, isoparaffinic and olefinic hydrocarbons, alcohols and glycol ethers, and any combination thereof. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the listed possible solvents to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 wherein the solvent comprises one or more of: methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, n-propanol, n-butanol, isobutanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, 2-methoxyethanol, 2-butoxyethanol, diethylene glycol, 2-(2- methoxyethoxy)ethanol, bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether, triethylene glycol, glycerol, ethyl acetate, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and triacetin”.
Regarding claim 21, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Through arrival to the invention as claimed and described in the rejection of claim 1, the collector composition excludes oleic acid or a conjugate base thereof. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 wherein the froth flotation collector composition excludes or substantially excludes oleic acid or a conjugate base thereof.”.
Regarding claim 22, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Liu describes in their composition that the collector can comprise a sulfonated fatty acid composition which have long been used as collectors in froth flotations since they function as collectors over a wide range of pH, temperature, and water hardness and also exhibit higher selectivity to targeted particles containing carbonate and/or silicate (paragraph [0012]). These sulfonated fatty acids are known to cause froth and thus are considered a surfactant. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a sulfonated fatty acid with the surfactant of Johnson to improve collection over wide ranges of pH, temperature, and water hardness while also exhibiting higher selectivity to carbonate and/or silicate as informed by Liu. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 further comprising a sulfonated surfactant”.
Regarding claim 23, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 22. Liu teaches the sulfonated fatty acid, in paragraph [0025], can be sulfonated oleic acid, a sulfonated oleic acid salt, sulfonated linoleic acid, a sulfonated linoleic acid salt, sulfonated ricinoleic acid, a sulfonated ricinoleic acid salt, sulfonated palmitoleic acid, a sulfonated palmitoleic acid salt, sulfonated 11-eicosenoic acid, a sulfonated 11-eicosenoic acid salt, sulfonated erucic acid, a sulfonated erucic acid salt, sulfonated nervonic acid, a sulfonated nervonic acid salt, or any combination thereof. Thus, each of the listed acid or acid salts (outside of nervonic) possess a sulfonate moiety and at least one alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl moiety having 10-22 carbons. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the listed sulfonated fatty acids of Liu to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 22 wherein the sulfonated surfactant comprises a sulfonate or sulfate moiety and at least one alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl moiety having 10 to 22 carbons”.
Regarding claim 24, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 22. In presented Figs, Liu discloses use of sulfonated oleic acid (otherwise known as sulfonated 9-octadecenoic acid) as the sulfonated fatty acid as well as in paragraph [0091]. Thus, Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the claimed “The froth flotation collector composition of claim 22 wherein the sulfonated surfactant is a salt of a sulfonated 9-octadecenoic acid”.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12, 15-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al in view of Liu et al and Kouznetsov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiao et al (CN114160313A).
Johnson, Liu, and Kouznetsov teach the froth flotation collector composition in claim 1 as described above but are silent on inclusion of an ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid ester comprising an alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons (otherwise limitations (b) and (c) in the instant claim 1). Jiao also teaches a froth flotation collector composition for ore beneficiation. Jiao teaches inclusion of a polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid ester which is T-80 (commercially available polysorban 80 which has a alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons). T-80 is provided as a non-ionic surface-active agent which is easy to dissolve in water, “with good emulsifying, dispersing and solubilizing performance”. Thus, T-80 is a known surfactant for use in froth flotation collector compositions. Jiao also discloses that “T-80 is not ionized in water, when it is dispersed on the surface of the dispersion, forming a film or double electric layer, can make the dispersed phase with charge, preventing the small droplets of the dispersed phase from condensing each other, making the formed emulsion more stable”. Additionally, T-80 makes mineral reaction more sufficient and enhances the selective capture performance and stability of flotation foam by strengthening its tension. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include T-80 as a known surfactant to prevent small droplet condensation, improve emulsion stability, and enhance performance of the froth flotation collector. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “A froth flotation collector composition comprising a hydroxycarboxylic acid, a conjugate base thereof, or a mixture thereof, a solvent, and a surfactant comprising: (a) a compound having the formula XOOC-CH(R)-CH2-COOY, wherein R is a substituent selected from C10-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl, and X and Y are independently selected from hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, ammonium, alkylammonium, and alkanolammonium; (b) an ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid ester comprising an alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons; or (c) a combination of one or more (a) and one or more (b)”.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Furthermore, all authors teach use of their composition to form a slurry in ore beneficiation (Johnson paragraphs [0145-151], Liu paragraph [0004] whereby water and phosphate mineral ore are provided, Kouznetsov Col 2 lines 20-28 and Col 4 lines 22-30 whereby water and comminuted coal are provided). Jiao specifically teaches use of the composition for lithium ore. Jiao provides lithium ore and water to prepare an ore slurry. Then, Jiao adds the froth flotation collector composition for beneficiation thus forming a lithium beneficiation slurry (see embodiments). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute a lithium ore source as known alternative precursor informed by Jiao for ore beneficiation. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “A lithium beneficiation slurry comprising a lithium ore source; a water source; and a froth flotation collector composition according to claim 1”.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. As described in the rejection of claim 21 above, arrival to the composition of claim 1 and subsequently the slurry of claim 5, oleic acid would not be included. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 wherein the lithium beneficiation slurry excludes or substantially excludes oleic acid or a conjugate base thereof”.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. Through arrival to the composition of claim 1 and subsequently the slurry of claim 5 (addition of water and lithium ore source), no other precursors or reagents outside of potential carried impurities would exist in the slurry. Therefore, the slurry consists essentially of the lithium ore source, the water source, the hydroxycarboxylic acid or conjugate base thereof, the surfactant, and the solvent. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 consisting essentially of the lithium ore source, the water source, the hydroxycarboxylic acid or conjugate base thereof, the surfactant, and the solvent”.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. As described in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 4a) above, Johnson describes the composition of the unsaturated fatty acids which can be unsaturated C18 (thus case where R is C18 alkenyl), a tall oil fatty acid, or a tall oil rosin acid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the listed unsaturated fatty acids to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 wherein R is an alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons”.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. As described in the rejection of claim 22 above, Liu teaches sulfonated fatty acid can be included in the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1. Sulfonated fatty acids have long been used as collectors in froth flotations since they function as collectors over a wide range of pH, temperature, and water hardness and also exhibit higher selectivity to targeted particles containing carbonate and/or silicate (paragraph [0012]). These sulfonated fatty acids are known to cause froth and thus are considered a surfactant. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a sulfonated fatty acid as a surfactant for improving collection over wide ranges of pH, temperature, and water hardness and having higher selectivity to targeted particles containing carbonate and/or silicate. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 wherein the surfactant further comprises a sulfonated surfactant”.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. As described in the rejection of claim 2 above, Liu discloses in paragraph [0019] and examples 1, 3, 5 and 6, that the beneficiating agent is ricinoleic acid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use ricinoleic acid as a known beneficiating agent for froth flotation collection. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 wherein the hydroxycarboxylic acid or conjugate base thereof is ricinoleic acid or a conjugate base thereof”.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. In embodiment 2, Jiao provides commercial lithium mica ore which comprises spodumene. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 wherein the lithium ore comprises a spodumene”.
Regarding claim 17, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5. Jiao teaches in the formation of the slurry (steps S1-2) that the lithium ore is grinded and crushed to a size around 74 microns. Comminuting an ore source is well understood in the art to mean reducing down to minute particles or fragments, thus the lithium ore would be understood to be comminuted. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to comminute the ore source as a known step in ore beneficiation when forming the lithium slurry. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 wherein the lithium ore source is a comminuted lithium ore source, a classified lithium ore source, or a comminuted classified lithium ore source.
Regarding claim 18, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 which is implicitly contained within the limitations of claim 18 (“…combining a lithium ore source, a water source, a hydroxycarboxylic acid and/or a conjugate base thereof, a solvent; and a surfactant comprising:(a) a compound having the formula XOOC-CH(R)-CH2-COOY, wherein R is a substituent selected from C10-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl, and X and Y are independently selected from hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, ammonium, alkylammonium, and alkanolammonium; (b) an ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid ester comprising an alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons; or (c) a combination of one or more (a) and one or more (b); to form a lithium beneficiation slurry…”. Liu teaches a sparging (paragraph [0008]) to form a froth layer and an underflow which are common forms of flotation separation processes. In direct froth flotation, the froth layer comprises a concentrated beneficiary (desired ore product), and the underflow comprises tailings (gangue or unwanted impurities). In reverse froth, the froth layer comprises tailings, and the underflow comprises a concentrated beneficiary. Liu applies this to phosphate ore in particular but is known to be broadly applicable to mineral ores (paragraphs [0002-4]). Jiao also teaches froth flotation collection, specifically for lithium ore, but does not specify the sparging and froth collection process. Regardless, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute these steps informed by Liu to the process of Jiao with predictable results in mineral ore beneficiation as sparging enables separation of desired and unwanted products into a froth and underflow for direct froth flotation and subsequent collection of froth to collect the desired product. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “A method of lithium ore froth flotation, the method comprising combining a lithium ore source, a water source, a hydroxycarboxylic acid and/or a conjugate base thereof, a solvent; and a surfactant comprising:(a) a compound having the formula XOOC-CH(R)-CH2-COOY, wherein R is a substituent selected from C10-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, aryl, aralkyl, or aralkenyl, and X and Y are independently selected from hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, zinc, magnesium, ammonium, alkylammonium, and alkanolammonium; (b) an ethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid ester comprising an alkyl or alkenyl group having 18 carbons; or (c) a combination of one or more (a) and one or more (b); to form a lithium beneficiation slurry; sparging the lithium beneficiation slurry to form a froth; and collecting the froth.”.
Regarding claim 19, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the method of claim 18. Liu teaches in paragraph [0004] that in froth flotation separation the ore is finely ground (comminuted) and subsequently slurried (combined with water and flotation composition). Jiao also teaches finely grinding and crushing the lithium ore source prior to making the slurry. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The method of claim 18 further comprising comminuting the lithium ore source, classifying the lithium ore source, or both comminuting and classifying the lithium ore source prior to the combining”.
Regarding claim 20, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the method of claim 18. As described in the rejections of claims 2, 6, 15, and 21 above, the arrival to the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 and the lithium beneficiation slurry of claim 5 would provide ricinoleic acid as the hydroxycarboxylic acid (informed by Liu) and would not provide oleic acid and/or a conjugate base thereof (informed by all authors cases as oleic acid is not necessary). Liu discloses in paragraph [0019] and examples 1, 3, 5 and 6, that the beneficiating agent is ricinoleic acid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use ricinoleic acid as a known beneficiating agent for froth flotation collection. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The method of claim 18 wherein the hydroxycarboxylic acid is ricinoleic acid, further wherein the lithium beneficiation slurry excludes an oleic acid and/or a conjugate base thereof.”.
Regarding claim 25, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the method of claim 18. As described in the rejections of claims 12 and 22 above, Liu teaches sulfonated fatty acid can be included in the froth flotation collector composition of claim 1 and thus the slurry of claim 5. Sulfonated fatty acids have long been used as collectors in froth flotations since they function as collectors over a wide range of pH, temperature, and water hardness and also exhibit higher selectivity to targeted particles containing carbonate and/or silicate (paragraph [0012]). These sulfonated fatty acids are known to cause froth and thus are considered a surfactant. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a sulfonated fatty acid as a surfactant for improving collection over wide ranges of pH, temperature, and water hardness and having higher selectivity to targeted particles containing carbonate and/or silicate. Thus, Johnson, Liu, Kouznetsov, and Jiao teach the claimed “The method of claim 18 wherein the surfactant further comprises a sulfonated surfactant”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights