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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is a response to applicant’s communication submitted June 24, 2026, wherein a response is made to the requirement for restriction issued May 19, 2026. This application is a national stage application of PCT/US2022/037866, filed July 21, 2022, which claims benefit of provisional application 63/224091, filed July 21, 2021.
Claims 1-20 pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s provisional election with traverse of group I, claims 1-10, drawn to an apparatus for converting cellulosic feedstock into sugar, filed June 24, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments of record with respect to the aforementioned traversal are acknowledged and found to be not persuasive to remove the requirement for restriction.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the apparatus described in claim 1 and the process described in claim 11 share certain special technical features not described in the art. The first such feature is a conveying tube with a conveying screw positioned inside the conveying tube and configures to separate and transport the raw material. The second such feature is “heating a raw material to a predetermined heat as the raw material is transported. The third such feature is crushing and grinding the raw material under pressure between a pair of rollers to induce a solid-solid chemical reaction do produce the sugar.
Regarding the first feature, this feature is not shared between the two claims 1 and 11. While the specifics features of the conveying tube are recited in claim 1, claim 11 merely recites conveying the raw material “via a conveying tube” with no further description of the structure of the conveying tube, such as an internal screw conveyer. Since this technical feature is not shared between the two groups it cannot be the basis for unity of invention.
Regarding the second feature, this feature is present in both claim 1 and claim 11. However, as argues in the restriction requirement, this feature is already present in the apparatus described by the previously cited reference Slager et al. WO2019/143736, because the feed guide 140, which is equivalent to the conveying tube described in claim 11, passes through the reaction chamber 102 on the way to the crusher assembly 128. Because the crusher assembly is disposed inside of the reaction chamber, which is itself described as being heated to a particular temperature by the heater 126, the feed material would necessarily be heated by simple heat transfer while passing through the reaction chamber. For example p. 53 on pp. 17-18 of Slager describes heating the reaction chamber to a controlled temperature. Applicant argues that this does not amount to a disclosure of the shared technical feature in the prior art because inherent disclosure is allegedly not sufficient to demonstrate a finding of lack of unity of invention. However, as described in MPEP 1850(II), “Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a "contribution" over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a "special technical feature," should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept.” Therefore the determination of whether or not a particular element described in a claim amounts to a special technical feature over the prior art is ultimately judged by the same standards used to determine novelty and inventive step under 35 USC 102 and 103. Since inherency is seen to be a legitimate reason to find a lack of novelty under 35 USC 102, this doctrine can equally be applied to the determination of unity of invention herein.
Regarding the third feature, this feature is in fact described in the disclosure of Slager. Specifically, the claimed feature is a pair of rollers that are configured to grind raw material under pressure to induce a solid-solid chemical reaction to produce a sugar. For example p. 21 paragraph 61 of Slager describes the apparatus as having a crusher assembly whose purpose is to grind a solid mixture of cellulosic feedstock and catalyst to produce sugar. Looking to paragraph 57 and figures 1 and 2, the crusher assembly is clearly a pair of rollers. Therefore it is reasonably to conclude that this particular technical feature is described in the prior art.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on June 24, 2026.
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application and examined on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 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. This claim includes as its sole additional limitation, “the particulate of biomass that is scraped from the rollers to the outlet hopper.” This limitation is not worded in such a way as to clearly define its relation to the invention of claim 6. For the sake of the present action, it will be examined as if it required that the rollers, the scrapers, and the outlet hopper of claim 6 are all configured so that particulate raw material scraped from the rollers is directed to the outlet hopper.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slager et al. (PCT international publication WO2019/143736, of record in previous action) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for converting cellulosic feedstock to sugar, in the present case glucose. A “system” herein is interpreted as referring to a machine under 35 USC 101. The machine is described as comprising several components, including a biomass hopper, a conveying tube coupled to the hopper comprising a conveying screw and a drop chute, a product heater proximate to the conveying screw tube, and a crusher assembly configure d to receive the raw material and grind the raw material under pressure to induce a solid-solid chemical reaction and produce the sugar.
Slager et al. discloses a device for the conversion of cellulose to sugar. (p. 4 paragraph 12) A schematic of the device is pictured in figure 1 of Slager. This device uses a set of rollers to carry out a solid-solid chemical reaction to convert cellulose to sugar in the presence of an acid catalyst. (p. 4 paragraph 13, see depiction of rollers in figure 2) The rollers are seen to be equivalent to the crusher assembly described in present claim 1. Regarding the other elements described in claim 1, the biomass hopper is equivalent to the inlet hopper 120 depicted in figure 1 and paragraphs 22 and 41. The feed guide 140 described in figure 1 and paragraph 44 performs the same function as the conveying tube recited in present claim 1. The heater 126 described in figure 1 and paragraphs 27 and 42 is equivalent to the product heater described in present claim 1.
The device described by Slager differs from that recited in claim 1 in that the feed guide 140 is described at a high level of generality and is not described as including a conveying screw or drop chute. However, Wennerstrum discloses the workings of roller presses, which are similar in design to the crusher assembly described by Slager and recited in the present claims. (see pp. 1-2) While the roller presses described by Wennerstrum are used for compacting powders into granules or briquets, rather than for promoting a solid phase reaction, the workings of the crusher assembly described by Slager and the roller press described by Wennerstrum are the same. In both devices, a solid feedstock is passed between two rollers which expose it to high pressure as to bring about a change in its properties. In particular, figure 2 on p. 3 of Wennerstrum illustrates the feed material being compressed between the two rollers, and figure 1 on the same page depicts a compaction-granulating apparatus having a raw material hopper and a double-screw feeder that removes material from the hopper and feeds it into the roller press. Single- and double- screw feeders are further described on p. 4 and in figure 4. These screw feeders comprise both a conveying screw, and an external wall that could be reasonably considered to be a drop chute leading into the roller assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a screw feeder, for example a double screw feeder, as the feed guide 140 in the device described by Slager. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the highly generic description of the feed guide by Slager as indicating that a wide variety of prior art mechanisms could be used for this purpose. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that, because the specific structure of the feed guide is not described by Slager, it would be necessary to find some structure that could perform the function of a feed guide for delivering feedstock from a hopper to a roller assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using such an assembly because as described by Wennerstrum it performs the same function of conveying a feedstock and no element of Slager’s crusher assembly would be expected to be incompatible with the screw feeders described by Wennerstrum.
Furthermore, present claim 1 also requires that the heater be “proximate” to the conveying screw tube and configured to provide a predetermined heat to the raw material as it is transported. It is noted that neither “proximate” or “predetermined” are specifically defined so as to provide an objective structural limitation, such as a particular distance between the heater and the feed tube, an amount of heat transferred from the heater to the tube, or a final temperature that the raw material is heated to before reaching the crusher assembly. Therefore the relevant limitations in claim 1 will be considered to be infringed so long as a heating element of some sort exists within the device, and the operation of this heating element results in heat transfer to the feedstock before it reaches the crushing assembly. A review of the device described by Slager et al. indicates that the heater 126 heats the reaction chamber 120. Because the feed guide 140 is disposed within the reaction chamber, heat would inherently be transferred to the presumably room temperature feedstock as it travels from the hopper to the crusher. In the absence of further numerical, objective limitations, such an arrangement would be considered to infringe the aforementioned limitations. Regarding present claim 2, the operation of the screw conveyers described by Wennerstrum would necessarily require the existence of a drive providing force to turn the screws. Because claim 2 does not specify the particulars of the structure or functioning of the drive, besides the fact that it is configured to provide power to the conveying screw, any feature of such a device that resulted in the screw turning with enough force to convey the feedstock would necessarily infringe this limitation.
Regarding present claim 4, the reaction chamber 102 would reasonably be considered to be an internal compartment surrounding the reaction zone and below the hopper.
Regarding present claim 8, Slager et al. describes the presence of a pressure sensor 112 (see figure 1 and p. 14 paragraph 47) which measures the pressure in the reaction chamber. (p. 6 paragraph 24)
Regarding claim 9, this claim requires that the device include a control cabinet comprising a programmable logic controller coupled to one of a number of controls or sensors. Slager et al. describes their device as including a control assembly, which receives data on pH, oxygen, moisture, and pressure from the sensor assembly. (p. 5 paragraph 20, p. 6 paragraph 24) The control assembly further monitors the process conditions and ensures that the process is optimized. (p. 12 paragraph 42) Furthermore the control assembly can make adjustments to the speed of the crusher assembly. (p. 13 paragraph 44) Thus it is at least couples to a pressure sensor and a motor speed control, and could be considered as a programmable logic controller as recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the raw material handled by the device described by Slager is a mixture of biomass and a catalyst. (p. 7 paragraph 28)
For these reasons the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slager et al. in view of Wennerstrum as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
The disclosures of Slager and Wennerstrum are discussed above. Slager et al. in view of Wennerstrum does not specifically disclose a system with at least two hydraulic cylinders and pushrods coupled to the rollers as recited in claim 3.
Jones et al. discloses a hydraulic drive for use in powering crushers. (p. 193, abstract) An illustration of this hydraulic drive (p. 195 figure 1b, p. 196 fig 2a, p. 197 fig 2b) this drive can be used to turn a drive shaft by an assembly of either radial or axial pistons. Either of these arrangements would infringe the limitations of claim 3 wherein the pistons drive the crusher assembly. Furthermore Jones describes hydraulic drives as being protected from tough applications such as crushers and roller presses. (p. 199 section 6) Case studies 1 and 2 (pp. 202-205) illustrate the use of these drives to power crushers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a hydraulic drive as the motor to power the rollers in the device described by Slager et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have, in view of the lack of details given by Slager regarding the drive and motor, looked to the prior art for existing drive assemblies that could be used to power a drive shaft. There would have been a reasonable expectation that any existing drive, such as a hydraulic drive, that was capable of turning a shaft, could successfully function to power the drive in Slager’s device.
Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slager et al. in view of Wennerstrum as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 above, and further in view of He Bao. (Foreign patent publication CN213557586U, Reference and English machine translation included with PTO-892)
The disclosures of Slager and Wennerstrum are discussed above. Slager et al. in view of Wennerstrum does not disclose a device having roll scrapers configured to remove particulates from the rollers.
He Bao discloses a crusher device for biomass comprising two rollers, which are additionally equipped with scraper blades associated with each roller configured to remove crushed biomass from the surface of the rollers. (pp. 3-4 paragraphs 4-12, p. 5 paragraph 24, figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include scrapers similar to those described by He Bao in contact with the rollers of Slager’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that these rollers would face similar problems with material adhering to the rollers as described by He Bao, and that including scrapers would address this problem.
Regarding claim 6, Slager’s device contains an output hopper 122, (See fig. 1) which receives the crushed product form the reaction chamber and can return the material to the inlet hopper if it is judged to need further processed. (p. 13 paragraph 44) Material scraped off the rollers by a scraper would also enter this hopper, and therefore could be reprocessed as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, this indefinite claim appears to be requiring that the biomass scraped off the roller enter the outlet hopper, which as discussed above would be the expected operation of Slager’s device if scrapers were added.
For these reasons the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/748450 (reference application, US pre-grant publication 2025/0388984, cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘450). Claims 1-10 are identical to present claims 1-10 and therefore drawn to the exact same invention. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10994255 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘255) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
Claim 1 is directed to a system for converting cellulose to sugar comprising a control assembly and a reaction chamber wherein the control assembly and reaction chamber are configured to transmit and receive signals, a crusher assembly configured to grind a mixture of cellulose feedstock and catalyst to induce a chemical reaction, and an outlet hopper configured to analyze the product to determine if reprocessing is necessary. Claim 4 of ‘255 further describes the crusher as a pair of rollers, similar to present claim 1. Claim 7 of ‘255 further describes a feedline connecting the inlet hopper and the reaction chamber.
The device described by the claims of ‘255 differs from that recited in present claim 1 in that feedline is described at a high level of generality and is not described as including a conveying screw or drop chute. However, Wennerstrum discloses the workings of roller presses, which are similar in design to the crusher assembly described by Slager and recited in the present claims. (see pp. 1-2) While the roller presses described by Wennerstrum are used for compacting powders into granules or briquets, rather than for promoting a solid phase reaction, the workings of the crusher assembly described by Slager and the roller press described by Wennerstrum are the same. In both devices, a solid feedstock is passed between two rollers which expose it to high pressure as to bring about a change in its properties. In particular, figure 2 on p. 3 of Wennerstrum illustrates the feed material being compressed between the two rollers, and figure 1 on the same page depicts a compaction-granulating apparatus having a raw material hopper and a double-screw feeder that removes material from the hopper and feeds it into the roller press. Single- and double- screw feeders are further described on p. 4 and in figure 4. These screw feeders comprise both a conveying screw, and an external wall that could be reasonably considered to be a drop chute leading into the roller assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a screw feeder, for example a double screw feeder, as the feedline in the device described by the claims of ‘255. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the highly generic description of the feed guide by Slager as indicating that a wide variety of prior art mechanisms could be used for this purpose. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that, because the specific structure of the feed guide is not described by the claims of ‘255, it would be necessary to find some structure that could perform the function of a feed guide for delivering feedstock from a hopper to a roller assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using such an assembly because as described by Wennerstrum it performs the same function of conveying a feedstock and no element of the claimed crusher assembly would be expected to be incompatible with the screw feeders described by Wennerstrum.
Furthermore claim 13 of ‘255 describes a heater which is configured to heat the reaction chamber. It is noted that neither “proximate” or “predetermined” are specifically defined so as to provide an objective structural limitation, such as a particular distance between the heater and the feed tube, an amount of heat transferred from the heater to the tube, or a final temperature that the raw material is heated to before reaching the crusher assembly. Therefore the relevant limitations in claim 1 will be considered to be infringed so long as a heating element of some sort exists within the device, and the operation of this heating element results in heat transfer to the feedstock before it reaches the crushing assembly. A review of the device described by the claims of ‘255 indicates that the heater of claim 13 heats the reaction chamber. Because the biomass must pass through the reaction chamber, heat would inherently be transferred to the presumably room temperature feedstock as it travels from the hopper to the crusher. In the absence of further numerical, objective limitations, such an arrangement would be considered to infringe the aforementioned limitations. Regarding present claim 2, the operation of the screw conveyers described by Wennerstrum would necessarily require the existence of a drive providing force to turn the screws. Because claim 2 does not specify the particulars of the structure or functioning of the drive, besides the fact that it is configured to provide power to the conveying screw, any feature of such a device that resulted in the screw turning with enough force to convey the feedstock would necessarily infringe this limitation.
Regarding present claim 4, the reaction chamber would reasonably be considered to be an internal compartment surrounding the reaction zone and below the hopper.
Regarding present claim 8, claim 2 of ‘255 describes the presence of various sensors including a pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 9, this claim requires that the device include a control cabinet comprising a programmable logic controller coupled to one of a number of controls or sensors. This is seen to be infringed by the control assembly recited in claim 1 of ‘255 and dependent claims 11 and 12 of ‘255
Regarding claim 10, the raw material handled by the device described by Slager is a mixture of biomass and a catalyst. (p. 7 paragraph 28)
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10994255 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘255) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of Jones et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘255 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of ‘255 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a system with at least two hydraulic cylinders and pushrods coupled to the rollers as recited in claim 3. However claim 10 of ‘255 further recites a generic drive assembly.
Jones et al. discloses a hydraulic drive for use in powering crushers. (p. 193, abstract) An illustration of this hydraulic drive (p. 195 figure 1b, p. 196 fig 2a, p. 197 fig 2b) this drive can be used to turn a drive shaft by an assembly of either radial or axial pistons. Either of these arrangements would infringe the limitations of claim 3 wherein the pistons drive the crusher assembly. Furthermore Jones describes hydraulic drives as being protected from tough applications such as crushers and roller presses. (p. 199 section 6) Case studies 1 and 2 (pp. 202-205) illustrate the use of these drives to power crushers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a hydraulic drive as the motor to power the rollers in the device claimed by ‘255. One of ordinary skill in the art would have, in view of the lack of details given by the claims of ‘255 regarding the drive and motor, looked to the prior art for existing drive assemblies that could be used to power a drive shaft. There would have been a reasonable expectation that any existing drive, such as a hydraulic drive, that was capable of turning a shaft, could successfully function to power the drive in the claimed device.
Claims 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10994255 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘255) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of He Bao. (Foreign patent publication CN213557586U, Reference and English machine translation included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘255 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of ‘255 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a device having roll scrapers configured to remove particulates from the rollers.
He Bao discloses a crusher device for biomass comprising two rollers, which are additionally equipped with scraper blades associated with each roller configured to remove crushed biomass from the surface of the rollers. (pp. 3-4 paragraphs 4-12, p. 5 paragraph 24, figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include scrapers similar to those described by He Bao in contact with the rollers of the device claimed by ‘255. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that these rollers would face similar problems with material adhering to the rollers as described by He Bao, and that including scrapers would address this problem.
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘255 describes contains an output hopper which receives the crushed product form the reaction chamber and can return the material to the inlet hopper if it is judged to need further processed. (p. 13 paragraph 44) Material scraped off the rollers by a scraper would also enter this hopper, and therefore could be reprocessed as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, this indefinite claim appears to be requiring that the biomass scraped off the roller enter the outlet hopper, which as discussed above would be the expected operation of the device of ‘255 if scrapers were added.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11484858 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘858) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
Claim 1 of ‘858 is directed to a system for converting cellulose to sugar comprising a reaction chamber and a crusher assembly configured to grind a mixture of cellulose feedstock and catalyst to induce a chemical reaction. Claim 2 of ‘858 further describes and an outlet hopper configured to receive the output of reaction materials. Dependent claims 13 and 14 describe the outlet hopper as configured to analyze the product to determine if reprocessing is necessary. Claim 1 of ‘858 further describes the crusher as a pair of rollers, similar to present claim 1. Claim 6 of ‘858 further describes a feedline connecting the inlet hopper and the reaction chamber.
The device described by the claims of ‘858 differs from that recited in present claim 1 in that feedline is described at a high level of generality and is not described as including a conveying screw or drop chute. However, Wennerstrum discloses the workings of roller presses, which are similar in design to the crusher assembly described by the claims of ‘858 and recited in the present claims. (see pp. 1-2) While the roller presses described by Wennerstrum are used for compacting powders into granules or briquets, rather than for promoting a solid phase reaction, the workings of the crusher assembly described by Slager and the roller press described by Wennerstrum are the same. In both devices, a solid feedstock is passed between two rollers which expose it to high pressure as to bring about a change in its properties. In particular, figure 2 on p. 3 of Wennerstrum illustrates the feed material being compressed between the two rollers, and figure 1 on the same page depicts a compaction-granulating apparatus having a raw material hopper and a double-screw feeder that removes material from the hopper and feeds it into the roller press. Single- and double- screw feeders are further described on p. 4 and in figure 4. These screw feeders comprise both a conveying screw, and an external wall that could be reasonably considered to be a drop chute leading into the roller assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a screw feeder, for example a double screw feeder, as the feedline in the device described by the claims of ‘858. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the highly generic description of the feed guide by Slager as indicating that a wide variety of prior art mechanisms could be used for this purpose. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that, because the specific structure of the feed line is not described by the claims of ‘858, it would be necessary to find some structure that could perform the function of a feed guide for delivering feedstock from a hopper to a roller assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using such an assembly because as described by Wennerstrum it performs the same function of conveying a feedstock and no element of the claimed crusher assembly would be expected to be incompatible with the screw feeders described by Wennerstrum.
Furthermore claim 11 of ‘858 describes a heater which is configured to heat the reaction chamber. It is noted that neither “proximate” or “predetermined” are specifically defined so as to provide an objective structural limitation, such as a particular distance between the heater and the feed tube, an amount of heat transferred from the heater to the tube, or a final temperature that the raw material is heated to before reaching the crusher assembly. Therefore the relevant limitations in claim 1 will be considered to be infringed so long as a heating element of some sort exists within the device, and the operation of this heating element results in heat transfer to the feedstock before it reaches the crushing assembly. A review of the device described by the claims of ‘858 indicates that the heater of claim 11 heats the reaction chamber. Because the biomass must pass through the reaction chamber, heat would inherently be transferred to the presumably room temperature feedstock as it travels from the hopper to the crusher. In the absence of further numerical, objective limitations, such an arrangement would be considered to infringe the aforementioned limitations. Regarding present claim 2, the operation of the screw conveyers described by Wennerstrum would necessarily require the existence of a drive providing force to turn the screws. Because claim 2 does not specify the particulars of the structure or functioning of the drive, besides the fact that it is configured to provide power to the conveying screw, any feature of such a device that resulted in the screw turning with enough force to convey the feedstock would necessarily infringe this limitation.
Regarding present claim 4, the reaction chamber would reasonably be considered to be an internal compartment surrounding the reaction zone and below the hopper.
Regarding present claim 8, claim 15 of ‘858 describes the presence of various sensors including a pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 10, the raw material handled by the device described by the claims of ‘858 is a mixture of biomass and a catalyst. (p. 7 paragraph 28)
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11484858 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘858) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of Jones et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘255 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of ‘858 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a system with at least two hydraulic cylinders and pushrods coupled to the rollers as recited in claim 3. However claim 10 of ‘858 further recites a generic drive assembly.
Jones et al. discloses a hydraulic drive for use in powering crushers. (p. 193, abstract) An illustration of this hydraulic drive (p. 195 figure 1b, p. 196 fig 2a, p. 197 fig 2b) this drive can be used to turn a drive shaft by an assembly of either radial or axial pistons. Either of these arrangements would infringe the limitations of claim 3 wherein the pistons drive the crusher assembly. Furthermore Jones describes hydraulic drives as being protected from tough applications such as crushers and roller presses. (p. 199 section 6) Case studies 1 and 2 (pp. 202-205) illustrate the use of these drives to power crushers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a hydraulic drive as the motor to power the rollers in the device claimed by ‘858. One of ordinary skill in the art would have, in view of the lack of details given by the claims of ‘858 regarding the drive and motor, looked to the prior art for existing drive assemblies that could be used to power a drive shaft. There would have been a reasonable expectation that any existing drive, such as a hydraulic drive, that was capable of turning a shaft, could successfully function to power the drive in the claimed device.
Claims 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11484858 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘858) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of He Bao. (Foreign patent publication CN213557586U, Reference and English machine translation included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘858 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of 858255 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a device having roll scrapers configured to remove particulates from the rollers.
He Bao discloses a crusher device for biomass comprising two rollers, which are additionally equipped with scraper blades associated with each roller configured to remove crushed biomass from the surface of the rollers. (pp. 3-4 paragraphs 4-12, p. 5 paragraph 24, figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include scrapers similar to those described by He Bao in contact with the rollers of the device claimed by ‘858. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that these rollers would face similar problems with material adhering to the rollers as described by He Bao, and that including scrapers would address this problem.
Regarding claim 6, claims 2 and 13-15 of ‘858 describe contains an output hopper which receives the crushed product form the reaction chamber and can return the material to the inlet hopper if it is judged to need further processed. (p. 13 paragraph 44) Material scraped off the rollers by a scraper would also enter this hopper, and therefore could be reprocessed as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, this indefinite claim appears to be requiring that the biomass scraped off the roller enter the outlet hopper, which as discussed above would be the expected operation of the device of ‘858 if scrapers were added.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 11, and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12318749 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘749) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
Claim 1 of ‘749 is directed to a system for converting cellulose to sugar comprising a reaction chamber and a crusher assembly configured to grind a mixture of cellulose feedstock and catalyst to induce a chemical reaction. Claim 1 of ‘749 further describes and an outlet hopper configured to receive the output of reaction materials. Dependent claims 13 and 14 describe the outlet hopper as configured to analyze the product to determine if reprocessing is necessary. Claim 5 of ‘749 further describes the crusher as a pair of rollers, similar to present claim 1. Claim 4 of ‘749 further describes a feedline connecting the inlet hopper and the reaction chamber.
The device described by the claims of ‘749 differs from that recited in present claim 1 in that feedline is described at a high level of generality and is not described as including a conveying screw or drop chute. However, Wennerstrum discloses the workings of roller presses, which are similar in design to the crusher assembly described by the claims of ‘749 and recited in the present claims. (see pp. 1-2) While the roller presses described by Wennerstrum are used for compacting powders into granules or briquets, rather than for promoting a solid phase reaction, the workings of the crusher assembly described by Slager and the roller press described by Wennerstrum are the same. In both devices, a solid feedstock is passed between two rollers which expose it to high pressure as to bring about a change in its properties. In particular, figure 2 on p. 3 of Wennerstrum illustrates the feed material being compressed between the two rollers, and figure 1 on the same page depicts a compaction-granulating apparatus having a raw material hopper and a double-screw feeder that removes material from the hopper and feeds it into the roller press. Single- and double- screw feeders are further described on p. 4 and in figure 4. These screw feeders comprise both a conveying screw, and an external wall that could be reasonably considered to be a drop chute leading into the roller assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a screw feeder, for example a double screw feeder, as the feedline in the device described by the claims of ‘749. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the highly generic description of the feed guide by Slager as indicating that a wide variety of prior art mechanisms could be used for this purpose. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that, because the specific structure of the feed line is not described by the claims of ‘749, it would be necessary to find some structure that could perform the function of a feed guide for delivering feedstock from a hopper to a roller assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using such an assembly because as described by Wennerstrum it performs the same function of conveying a feedstock and no element of the claimed crusher assembly would be expected to be incompatible with the screw feeders described by Wennerstrum.
Furthermore claim 11 of ‘749 describes a heater which is configured to heat the reaction chamber. It is noted that neither “proximate” or “predetermined” are specifically defined so as to provide an objective structural limitation, such as a particular distance between the heater and the feed tube, an amount of heat transferred from the heater to the tube, or a final temperature that the raw material is heated to before reaching the crusher assembly. Therefore the relevant limitations in claim 1 will be considered to be infringed so long as a heating element of some sort exists within the device, and the operation of this heating element results in heat transfer to the feedstock before it reaches the crushing assembly. A review of the device described by the claims of ‘858 indicates that the heater of claim 11 heats the reaction chamber. Because the biomass must pass through the reaction chamber, heat would inherently be transferred to the presumably room temperature feedstock as it travels from the hopper to the crusher. In the absence of further numerical, objective limitations, such an arrangement would be considered to infringe the aforementioned limitations. Regarding present claim 2, the operation of the screw conveyers described by Wennerstrum would necessarily require the existence of a drive providing force to turn the screws. Because claim 2 does not specify the particulars of the structure or functioning of the drive, besides the fact that it is configured to provide power to the conveying screw, any feature of such a device that resulted in the screw turning with enough force to convey the feedstock would necessarily infringe this limitation.
Regarding present claim 4, the reaction chamber would reasonably be considered to be an internal compartment surrounding the reaction zone and below the hopper.
Regarding present claim 8, claim 15 of ‘749 describes the presence of various sensors including a pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 10, the raw material handled by the device described by the claims of ‘858 is a mixture of biomass and a catalyst. (p. 7 paragraph 28)
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12318749 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘749) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of Jones et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘255 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of ‘749 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a system with at least two hydraulic cylinders and pushrods coupled to the rollers as recited in claim 3. However claim 10 of ‘749 further recites a generic drive assembly.
Jones et al. discloses a hydraulic drive for use in powering crushers. (p. 193, abstract) An illustration of this hydraulic drive (p. 195 figure 1b, p. 196 fig 2a, p. 197 fig 2b) this drive can be used to turn a drive shaft by an assembly of either radial or axial pistons. Either of these arrangements would infringe the limitations of claim 3 wherein the pistons drive the crusher assembly. Furthermore Jones describes hydraulic drives as being protected from tough applications such as crushers and roller presses. (p. 199 section 6) Case studies 1 and 2 (pp. 202-205) illustrate the use of these drives to power crushers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a hydraulic drive as the motor to power the rollers in the device claimed by ‘749. One of ordinary skill in the art would have, in view of the lack of details given by the claims of ‘749 regarding the drive and motor, looked to the prior art for existing drive assemblies that could be used to power a drive shaft. There would have been a reasonable expectation that any existing drive, such as a hydraulic drive, that was capable of turning a shaft, could successfully function to power the drive in the claimed device.
Claims 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12318749 (Cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘749) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of He Bao. (Foreign patent publication CN213557586U, Reference and English machine translation included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘749 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of 858255 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a device having roll scrapers configured to remove particulates from the rollers.
He Bao discloses a crusher device for biomass comprising two rollers, which are additionally equipped with scraper blades associated with each roller configured to remove crushed biomass from the surface of the rollers. (pp. 3-4 paragraphs 4-12, p. 5 paragraph 24, figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include scrapers similar to those described by He Bao in contact with the rollers of the device claimed by ‘749. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that these rollers would face similar problems with material adhering to the rollers as described by He Bao, and that including scrapers would address this problem.
Regarding claim 6, claims 2 and 13-15 of ‘749 describe contains an output hopper which receives the crushed product form the reaction chamber and can return the material to the inlet hopper if it is judged to need further processed. (p. 13 paragraph 44) Material scraped off the rollers by a scraper would also enter this hopper, and therefore could be reprocessed as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, this indefinite claim appears to be requiring that the biomass scraped off the roller enter the outlet hopper, which as discussed above would be the expected operation of the device of ‘749 if scrapers were added.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 19/206283 (unpublished application, cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘283) in view of Wennerstrum. (Cited in PTO-892)
Claim 1 of ‘283 is directed to a system for converting cellulose to sugar comprising a control assembly and a reaction chamber wherein the control assembly and reaction chamber are configured to transmit and receive signals, and a crusher assembly configured to grind a mixture of cellulose feedstock and catalyst to induce a chemical reaction. Claims 2 and 15 further describe an outlet hopper configured to analyze the product to determine if reprocessing is necessary. Claim 8 of ‘283 further describes the crusher as a pair of rollers, similar to present claim 1. Claim 7 of ‘283 further describes a feedline connecting the inlet hopper and the reaction chamber.
The device described by the claims of ‘283 differs from that recited in present claim 1 in that feedline is described at a high level of generality and is not described as including a conveying screw or drop chute. However, Wennerstrum discloses the workings of roller presses, which are similar in design to the crusher assembly described by Slager and recited in the present claims. (see pp. 1-2) While the roller presses described by Wennerstrum are used for compacting powders into granules or briquets, rather than for promoting a solid phase reaction, the workings of the crusher assembly described by Slager and the roller press described by Wennerstrum are the same. In both devices, a solid feedstock is passed between two rollers which expose it to high pressure as to bring about a change in its properties. In particular, figure 2 on p. 3 of Wennerstrum illustrates the feed material being compressed between the two rollers, and figure 1 on the same page depicts a compaction-granulating apparatus having a raw material hopper and a double-screw feeder that removes material from the hopper and feeds it into the roller press. Single- and double- screw feeders are further described on p. 4 and in figure 4. These screw feeders comprise both a conveying screw, and an external wall that could be reasonably considered to be a drop chute leading into the roller assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a screw feeder, for example a double screw feeder, as the feedline in the device described by the claims of ‘283. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the highly generic description of the feed guide by Slager as indicating that a wide variety of prior art mechanisms could be used for this purpose. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that, because the specific structure of the feed guide is not described by the claims of ‘283, it would be necessary to find some structure that could perform the function of a feed guide for delivering feedstock from a hopper to a roller assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using such an assembly because as described by Wennerstrum it performs the same function of conveying a feedstock and no element of the claimed crusher assembly would be expected to be incompatible with the screw feeders described by Wennerstrum.
Furthermore claim 13 of ‘283 describes a heater which is configured to heat the reaction chamber. It is noted that neither “proximate” or “predetermined” are specifically defined so as to provide an objective structural limitation, such as a particular distance between the heater and the feed tube, an amount of heat transferred from the heater to the tube, or a final temperature that the raw material is heated to before reaching the crusher assembly. Therefore the relevant limitations in claim 1 will be considered to be infringed so long as a heating element of some sort exists within the device, and the operation of this heating element results in heat transfer to the feedstock before it reaches the crushing assembly. A review of the device described by the claims of ‘283 indicates that the heater of claim 13 heats the reaction chamber. Because the biomass must pass through the reaction chamber, heat would inherently be transferred to the presumably room temperature feedstock as it travels from the hopper to the crusher. In the absence of further numerical, objective limitations, such an arrangement would be considered to infringe the aforementioned limitations. Regarding present claim 2, the operation of the screw conveyers described by Wennerstrum would necessarily require the existence of a drive providing force to turn the screws. Because claim 2 does not specify the particulars of the structure or functioning of the drive, besides the fact that it is configured to provide power to the conveying screw, any feature of such a device that resulted in the screw turning with enough force to convey the feedstock would necessarily infringe this limitation.
Regarding present claim 4, the reaction chamber would reasonably be considered to be an internal compartment surrounding the reaction zone and below the hopper.
Regarding present claim 8, claim 2 of ‘283 describes the presence of various sensors including a pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 9, this claim requires that the device include a control cabinet comprising a programmable logic controller coupled to one of a number of controls or sensors. This is seen to be infringed by the control assembly recited in claim 1 of ‘283 and dependent claim 11 of ‘283
Regarding claim 10, the raw material handled by the device described by the claims of ‘293 is a mixture of biomass and a catalyst.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 19/206283 (unpublished application, cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘283) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of Jones et al. (Reference included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘283 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of ‘255 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a system with at least two hydraulic cylinders and pushrods coupled to the rollers as recited in claim 3. However claim 10 of ‘283 further recites a generic drive assembly.
Jones et al. discloses a hydraulic drive for use in powering crushers. (p. 193, abstract) An illustration of this hydraulic drive (p. 195 figure 1b, p. 196 fig 2a, p. 197 fig 2b) this drive can be used to turn a drive shaft by an assembly of either radial or axial pistons. Either of these arrangements would infringe the limitations of claim 3 wherein the pistons drive the crusher assembly. Furthermore Jones describes hydraulic drives as being protected from tough applications such as crushers and roller presses. (p. 199 section 6) Case studies 1 and 2 (pp. 202-205) illustrate the use of these drives to power crushers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a hydraulic drive as the motor to power the rollers in the device claimed by ‘283. One of ordinary skill in the art would have, in view of the lack of details given by the claims of ‘283 regarding the drive and motor, looked to the prior art for existing drive assemblies that could be used to power a drive shaft. There would have been a reasonable expectation that any existing drive, such as a hydraulic drive, that was capable of turning a shaft, could successfully function to power the drive in the claimed device.
Claims 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 19/206283 (unpublished application, cited in PTO-892, herein referred to as ‘283) in view of Wennerstrum et al. (Reference included with PTO-892) and further in view of He Bao. (Foreign patent publication CN213557586U, Reference and English machine translation included with PTO-892)
The claims of ‘283 and the disclosure of Wennerstrum are discussed above. The claims of ‘283 in view of Wennerstrum do not specifically disclose a device having roll scrapers configured to remove particulates from the rollers.
He Bao discloses a crusher device for biomass comprising two rollers, which are additionally equipped with scraper blades associated with each roller configured to remove crushed biomass from the surface of the rollers. (pp. 3-4 paragraphs 4-12, p. 5 paragraph 24, figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include scrapers similar to those described by He Bao in contact with the rollers of the device claimed by ‘283. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that these rollers would face similar problems with material adhering to the rollers as described by He Bao, and that including scrapers would address this problem.
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘283 describes contains an output hopper which receives the crushed product form the reaction chamber and can return the material to the inlet hopper if it is judged to need further processed. (p. 13 paragraph 44) Material scraped off the rollers by a scraper would also enter this hopper, and therefore could be reprocessed as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, this indefinite claim appears to be requiring that the biomass scraped off the roller enter the outlet hopper, which as discussed above would be the expected operation of the device of ‘283 if scrapers were added.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-3:00pm.
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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/ANDREA OLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights