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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1-3,7 and 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26 are amended. Claims 4-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 19, 22, 25, and 27-29 are cancelled.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claims 12 and 13.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The terms “substantially no copper” and “substantially no gold” are being interpreted by the Examiner to mean less than 5% by weight of the copper or gold, respectively, in the gold/copper-containing material, in accordance with the instant specification at pg. 4 lines 12-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “carrying out the copper heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively" in lines 9-10. The instant specification discloses “The method may include forming a heap of the ore and carrying out the gold leach stage and the copper leach stage successively on the ore in the heap.” at pg. 5 lines 26-27 and “carrying out the copper leach stage and the gold leach stage successively” at pg. 6 lines 9-10 however the instant specification does not disclose carrying out two copper heap leach stages consecutively, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23-24, and 26 are 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 1 recites the limitation "carrying out the copper heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively" in lines 9-10. The limitation is indefinite as claim 1 discloses only two heap leach stages (one gold heap leach stage and one copper heap leach stage), making unclear how two copper heap leach stages are performed successively.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the copper heap leach stage" in line 3 and “the gold heap leach stage comprising leaching gold from the copper-depleted material” in line 6. The limitation is indefinite, as parent claim 1 only discloses the choices of “carrying out the gold heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively” in lines 7-8, or “carrying out the copper heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively” in lines 9-10, thus it is unclear how a gold heap leach stage could follow copper heap leaching as such is not a combination of steps disclosed by parent claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “Eh”. The term “Eh” is not defined by the instant specification nor does the term have a single established meaning in the art, making unclear what quality ranges from 350 to 550 mV.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 112458277 A, cited in IDS filed 01/02/2025, translation supplied with Office Action mailed 02/25/2025) in view of Le Capitaine et al. (Heap Leaching A Growing Technology in Beneficiation, supplied with Office Action mailed 06/30/2025) and Kohr (US 5766930 A, cited in Office Action mailed 02/25/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Cai teaches a method of leaching a gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material (Title, [n0006, n0014]) that includes two leach stages with a thiourea-based gold leach stage leaching gold from the material with a gold leach liquor [n0020] and a copper leach stage leaching copper from the material with a copper leach liquor [n0014].
Cai does not teach wherein the leach stages are heap leach stages.
Le Capitaine teaches heap leaching to be useful in the copper and gold industries, thus Cai and Le Capitaine are analogous to the instant specification as both are directed to extraction of copper and gold. Le Capitaine teaches heap leaching offers a wide range of advantages, including low capital investment and operating costs, fast payback, no tailings disposal, lower energy and water requirements, the ability to be applied to tailings and waste piles, viability in a wide range of climates, and simple setup and operation (pg. 2 paragraphs 1-2), as well as using technology that can be contracted locally, fewer acid rock drainage problems, and less sensitivity to commodity price changes, longer mine life, and larger operations (pg. 2 paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the leach stages of Cai heap leach stages as taught by Le Capitaine as doing so would result in low capital and operating costs, fast payback, no tailings disposal, lower energy and water requirements, the ability to be applied to tailings and waste piles, viability in a wide range of climates, simple setup and operation, use technology that can be contracted locally, have fewer acid rock drainage problems, and have less sensitivity to commodity price changes, longer mine life, and larger operations.
Cai does not teach wherein the copper heap leach stage leaching copper from the material with a copper leach liquor is assisted by use of microorganisms
Kohr teaches a method of biotreatment for solid materials (Title) comprising a method of recovering metal from ore such as copper ore (Col. 25 lines 51-54) such as tailings or waste heaps (Col. 20 lines 41-44). Thus, Kohr and Fang are analogous as both are directed to wet processes of recovering metal by leaching ore. Kohr teaches a copper leach stage 26 leaching copper from the material with a copper leach liquor (Col. 26 lines 5-14) and assisted by use of bacteria (i.e., microorganisms) (Col. 26 lines 5-10). Kohr teaches the microorganisms degrade undesired compounds in the solid material (Col. 1 lines 17-20, Col. 8 lines 26-33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have assisted copper leaching by adding microorganisms as taught by Kohr to the copper heap leach stage of Cai in view of Le Capitaine as doing so would degrade undesired compounds in the solid material, which would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the purity and yield of the copper obtained.
Le Capitaine teaches forming a heap of the material (e.g., pg. 3 paragraphs 1-4). Cai in view of Le Capitaine and Kohr does not teach carrying out the gold heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively on the gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material or carrying out the copper heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively on the gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material.
Cai teaches wherein the gold/copper-containing material is a mined ore or a mined waste material [n0011]. Cai teaches the copper heap leach stage comprises leaching copper from the material with a low concentration of sulfuric acid (i.e., the copper leach liquor) [n0014] and producing a leachate (i.e., a copper-containing solution) and a leached slag (i.e., copper-depleted material [n0014]). Cai further teaches the thiourea-based gold heap leach stage comprises leaching gold from the copper-depleted material [n0020] with thiourea, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen peroxide (i.e., the gold leach liquor) and producing a gold-containing solution [n0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the heap leaching stages successively on the material in the heap of Cai as taught by Wan as doing so would make it unnecessary to disturb the structure of the heap, which would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to simplify performing the leaching.
Cai performs copper leaching followed by gold leaching of the copper-depleted material instead of gold leaching followed by copper leaching of a gold-depleted material, however it has long been held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144 IV (C). Therefore, as the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of mixing steps compared to the prior art, it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because the leaching of copper and gold from the material occurs regardless of the sequence of leaching steps, thus Wan suggests both carrying out the gold heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively, and the copper heap leach stage and the copper heap leach stage successively, on the material in the heap as claimed as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claim 2, Cai teaches that greater than 85% of Cu ends up in a copper concentrate that is not subjected to gold leaching [n0011, n0039], and a recovery rate of Cu of 98.5% in the copper extraction process [n0016, n0040], indicating that substantially no copper remains by the gold heap leaching stage [n0020], and therefore leach conditions in the prior art method are selected so that there is substantially no copper leached in the gold heap leach stage.
Regarding claim 3, Cai teaches the leaching rate of gold is greater than 95% in the gold leaching stage [n0038, n0061], indicating less than 5% of the gold is leached in the copper heap leach stage, and therefore Cai teaches a method wherein leach conditions are selected so that there is substantially no gold leached in the copper heap leach stage.
Regarding claim 7, Cai teaches separate recovery stages for recovering gold [n0022] and copper [n0016] from gold leachate (i.e., gold-containing solution) [n0020, n0022] and leachate (i.e., copper-containing solution) from the leach stages respectively [n0016]. Cai teaches producing recovered gold and copper streams [n0022]. Cai teaches adding a reducing agent to the gold leachate to obtain gold from the leachate [n0031], which would leave a spent leachate (i.e., a spent gold-containing solution), and a producing blank organic solution (i.e., spent copper-containing solution) [n0016].
Regarding claim 10, Cai teaches wherein the gold/copper-containing material is a mined ore or a mined waste material [n0011]. Cai teaches the copper heap leach stage comprises leaching copper from the material with a low concentration of sulfuric acid (i.e., the copper leach liquor) [n0014] and producing a leachate (i.e., a copper-containing solution) and a leached slag (i.e., copper-depleted material [n0014]). Cai further teaches the thiourea-based gold heap leach stage comprises leaching gold from the copper-depleted material [n0020] with thiourea, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen peroxide (i.e., the gold leach liquor) and producing a gold-containing solution [n0020].
Cai performs copper leaching followed by gold leaching of the copper-depleted material instead of gold leaching followed by copper leaching of a gold-depleted material, however it has long been held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, as noted regarding claim 1 above, therefore, as the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of mixing steps compared to the prior art, it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because the leaching of copper and gold from the material occurs regardless of the sequence of leaching steps.
Regarding claim 11, Cai teaches wherein the gold/copper-containing material is a mined ore or a mined waste material [n0011]. Cai teaches the copper heap leach stage comprises leaching copper from the material with a low concentration of sulfuric acid (i.e., the copper leach liquor) [n0014] and producing a leachate (i.e., a copper-containing solution) and a leached slag (i.e., copper-depleted material [n0014]). Cai further teaches the thiourea-based gold heap leach stage comprises leaching gold from the copper-depleted material [n0020] with thiourea, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen peroxide (i.e., the gold leach liquor) and producing a gold-containing solution [n0020].
Regarding claim 16, Cai teaches carrying out the thiourea-based gold heap leach stage out using an acidic thiourea leaching process (i.e., under acidic conditions) [n0020].
Regarding claim 17, Cai teaches wherein the gold leach stage uses 30-70 g/L thiourea [n0020], where thiourea (CS(NH2)2) acts as a complexing/extracting agent for gold that facilitates leaching gold from the material in the thiourea-based gold heap leach stage as thiourea is used to extract gold from the material.
Regarding claim 18, Cai does not teach controlling a ferric concentration in the gold leach liquor.
Wan teaches controlling the ferric concentration in the gold leach liquor to be at 0.05 M-0.2 M [0020], such as 0.04 M (2.23 g/L) (Table 13), which is a concentration that would not leach copper.
Because Cai is silent with respect to a ferric concentration in the gold leach liquor, in order to carry out the invention of Cai one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a ferric concentration suitable for use within the process of Cai, such as that of 0.05 M to 0.2 M taught by Wan. As Cai and Wan both relate to leaching of copper and gold from ore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ferric concentration of Wan.
Regarding claim 20, Cai does not teaches controlling the Eh of the gold leach liquor.
Wan teaches controlling the Eh of the gold leach liquor to be in a range of 350-550 mV in the gold leach stage (e.g., Tables 8-9).
Because Cai is silent with respect to a suitable Eh of the gold leach liquor, in order to carry out the invention of Cai one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching a ferric concentration suitable for use within the process of Cai, such as those within the 330-550 mV range taught by Wan. As Cai and Wan both relate to leaching of copper and gold from ore, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the ferric concentration of Wan.
Regarding claim 21, Cai teaches carrying out the copper heap leach stage using sulfuric acid (i.e., under acidic conditions) [n0014].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Le Capitaine, Kohr, and Wan as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shaw (US 5236492 A, cited in Office Action mailed 02/25/2025).
Regarding claim 14, Cai in view of Le Capitaine, Kohr, and Wan does not teach a heap washing step between successive heap leach stages.
Shaw teaches recovery of precious metal values such as gold from refractory ores (Abstract, Col. 10 lines 54-57) such as sulfidic ores (Col. 4 lines 7-9), where the gold is recovered by heap leaching (Fig. 1, Col. 10 lines 54-57). Therefore, Shaw and Cai are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to recovery of gold from ore by heap leaching. Shaw teaches after heap leaching, the heaped ore bed is washed (i.e., a heap washing stage) to recover unreacted nitric acid (the leach liquor), and dilutes and removes residual leach liquor in the heaped ore that contains dissolved metal (Col. 10 lines 217-). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a heap washing stage as taught by Shaw after the heap leaching of Cai in view of Le Capitaine, as doing so would recover unreacted leach liquor and remove remaining leach liquor in the heap. As the heap washing stage of Shaw is incorporated following the gold leaching stage and before the copper leach stage, the combination of references suggests a heap washing stage between successive heap leach stages as claimed.
Claims 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Le Capitaine, Kohr, and Wan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 20190382869 A1, cited in Office Action dated 02/25/2025).
Regarding claim 23, Cai does not teach conducting the copper heap leach stage with the copper leach liquor in the presence of silver as a copper leach catalyst and an activation agent.
Brown teaches a method of leaching chalcopyrite ores to leach copper (Abstract, [0018]), by heap leaching [0020], therefore Brown and Cai are analogous as both are directed to leaching sulfidic mined material to recover copper by leaching. Brown teaches the copper leach stage 5 includes conducting the heap leach stage 5 with the leach liquor 11 in the presence of silver 9 (Fig. 1, [0134-0137]). Brown teaches the silver acts as a copper leach catalyst [0021]. Brown teaches silver chloride may be added to the solution [0184], where as the chloride enhances copper leaching, silver chloride is considered equivalent to an activation agent that activates silver such that the silver enhances copper leaching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a silver catalyst as taught by Brown to the copper leaching step of Cai as doing so would enhance the leaching of copper.
Regarding claim 24, Cai teaches a copper leaching temperature of 80-90 C [n0025], and does not teach controlling a heap temperature to be less than 75 °C in the copper heap leach stage.
Brown teaches leaching at lower temperatures of <50 °C avoids temperature control and other problems associated with higher temperature heap leach operations, and avoid the higher capital and
operating costs associated with higher temperature heap leach operations [0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a temperature of less than 50 °C as taught by Brown in the copper heap leaching of Cai, as doing so would avoid temperature control and other problems associated with higher temperatures, and avoid higher capital and operating costs.
Regarding claim 26, Cai does not teach controlling an oxidation potential of the copper heap leach liquor during an active leaching phase of the copper heap leach stage to be less than 700 mV. Brown teaches controlling the oxidation potential of the copper leach liquor during an active leaching phase of the copper leach stage to be less than 700 mV [0076]. Because Cai is silent with respect to an appropriate oxidation potential during the copper leach stage, in order to carry out the invention of Cai one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching an oxidation potential suitable for the copper leach liquor during leaching in the process of Cai, such as that of less than 700 mV as taught by Brown. As Cai and Brown both relate to processes of leaching copper ore under acidic conditions, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the oxidation potential range of Brown.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cai does not teach leaching the sulfur concentrate, and instead leaches a slag from oxidation roasting processes, and therefore does not teach leaching gold/copper-containing sulfidic material as claimed (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Applicant notes, Cai teaches leaching roasting slag produced from roasting sulfur concentrate rather than leaching the sulfur concentrate directly. However, as the slag still comprises sulfur (e.g., [n0015]), and is the result of pretreatment steps of grinding, beneficiation, and oxidation roasting [n0011-n0012], the slag comprises a sulfidic mined mineral as claimed, thus the low-acid leaching of roasted slag to leach copper and thiourea leaching of leaching residue from the low-acid leaching to leach gold comprise a copper leach stage and thiourea-based gold leach stage respectively. Therefore, the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to have specified the copper and gold leaching steps of Cai to occur as heap leaches as Le Capitaine teaches heap leaching to benefit from low capital and operating costs, fast payback, no tailings disposal, and other advantages is maintained.
Further, Le Capitaine specifically discloses, as noted by Applicant, that one of the advantages of heap leaching is that it may be applied to tailing and waste piles, therefore heap leaching and the advantages thereof described by Le Capitaine are not narrowly directed to “mined ore” only as claimed, but would also be applicable to leaching of slag and residue (i.e., tailings or waste) resulting from previous process steps of treating mined material, which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do as noted by Applicant at pg. 9.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cai in view of Le Capitaine and Kohr does not teach forming a heap of gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material (see pg. 10 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Le Capitaine teaches forming a heap of material for each leaching stage, and only is deficient with respect to now cancelled claims 12 and 13 and amended claim 1 in not teaching carrying out successive heap leaching steps on the same heap.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cai in view of Le Capitaine and Kohr does not teach carrying out the gold heap leach stage and copper heap leach stage successively on the gold/copper-containing sulfidic mined material (see pg. 10 of remarks), Wan is relied upon to teach this feature.
Cai in view of Le Capitaine and Kohr as noted at item b. above teaches forming a heap of material for leaching, while Wan is relied upon to teach that the heaps formed for each leaching step of Cai in view of others, may instead be a single heap as Cai teaches performing successive copper and gold leaching successively in the same heap.
While as Applicant notes, Wan uses a thiocyanate leach to leach gold, whereas Cai uses a thiourea leach to leach gold, Wan is not relied upon to teach e.g., modifying the leaching solution used by Cai. Instead, Wan is relied upon to generally teach applying the successive leaching steps of copper and gold leaching in a single heap of Wan to the process of Cai in view of others, where doing so would have had a reasonable expectation of success to one of ordinary skill in the art as Cai teaches the copper leaching to result in a leached slag and a leaching solution containing the Cu [n0014], where the leaching solution is further treated by solvent extraction [n0016], which would leave the leached slag, and as the leached slag is then treated by the thiourea leaching process (i.e., with no intervening steps acting upon the leached slag) [n0020], Cai already performs leaching of copper and gold successively, and is modified in view of Le Capitaine to perform leaching of copper and gold as heap leaching steps. Therefore, as Wan teaches successive leaching of copper and gold may also be applied to heap leaching with the benefit of it not being necessary to disturb the structure of the heap between the copper and gold leaches (which is not an advantage specific to e.g., a specific choice of leaching solution), it would have been obvious to perform the successive leaching steps on a single heap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733