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’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 22, 23, 36, 37, 39-44, 49, 50, 55, 57, 62, 63, and 65 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is dependent upon claim 21 which does not exist. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 22, 23, 36, 37, 39-44, 49, 50, 55, 57, 62, 63, and 65 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 "the external surface area density" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 22 and 23 recite the limitation "the ball pan hardness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Additionally, the ball pan hardness is missing a unit making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The examiner interprets the unit of measurement as a percentage because that is what was found in the prior art.
Claims 39-42 recite the limitation “the mass ratio” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “the carrier ion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 49 recites the carbon particles are less than a range of two numbers. A maximum threshold mixed with a range of two numbers makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The examiner interprets the size limitation being between 7 and 50 micrometers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (KR20180102330A), and further in view of Hou et al. (CN111318261A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon et al. discloses a nitrogen doped activated carbon comprising an activated carbon having an N-group (paragraph 0012). The doped carbon is used as a siloxane adsorbent (paragraph 0008). Yoon et al. discloses the adsorbent can be a powder, nanostructure, quantum dot, or a nanoparticle with a size range of 50 nm (0.05 micrometers) to 100 micrometers (paragraph 0045). This range overlaps the size limitation of less than 2 micrometers and less than 4 micrometers.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Yoon et al. is silent on a particle number density, but the particle size directly affects the particle number density. A smaller particle size results in larger particle size density. Since Yoon et al. discloses the same material and a particle size that can be smaller than the claimed range, one having ordinary skill in the art could create a carbon sorbent with a particle number density greater than a trillion particles per gram.
Yoon et al. discloses the specific surface area of the doped carbon can be 1500-3500 m2/g. A specific surface area accounts for the area of internal and external surfaces of a porous material. While external surface area typically makes up a smaller portion of specific surface area, it is the position of the examiner that the external surface area of the doped carbon is greater than 1.5 m2/g.
If it is argued that the specific surface area does not fulfill the external surface area limitation of the claim, Yoon et al. discloses the doped activated carbon can have a high adsorption capacity by having a larger surface area making external surface area a result-effective (paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In e Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Yoon et al. discloses a long list of compounds having an activated carbon with an N group where the nitrogen links with at least two adjoining carbon atoms (paragraph 0037).
Yoon et al. does not disclose the N-group has a positive charge throughout the pH range above 8 pH units, and the list of N-groups in paragraph 0037 does not include strong bases.
Hou et al. discloses reacting epoxidized quaternary ammonium salt and activated carbon to obtain activated carbon with quaternary ammonium functional groups fixed on the surface of the carbon (paragraph 0010). Quaternary ammonium functional groups are a very strong base that cannot be protonated or deprotonated, so the functional groups host a positive charge throughout the pH above 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dope the active carbon in Yoon et al. with a quaternary ammonium salt because the removal efficiency of bromate ions in water is greatly improved due to the strong electrostatic adsorption of negatively charged bromate ions by the positively charged nitrogen-containing functional groups in the quaternary ammonium (paragraph 0012). A quaternary ammonium doped activated carbon would have good removal efficiency of other negatively charged ions.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Yoon et al. discloses the precursor mixture comprises an activator (paragraph 0048). The activator can be sodium carbonate which is a mineral. The mass ratio of hydrocarbon having activated carbon and an N-group to the activator can be 1:1 to 1:6 (paragraph 50). The mass ratio of 1:1 would be a 50 wt% of minerals creating overlapping/touching ranges.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In e Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges or amount do not
overlap with the prior art but are merely close. One skilled in the art would expect doped activated carbon with a mass ratio of hydrocarbon to activator of 1:1 to 1:6 (50-86 wt%) to have the same properties as one with 1.5/10-50 wt%. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon et al. discloses the micropores of the carbon can be 0.7-1.2 cm3/g and the mesopore can be 0.1-1.4 cm3/g (paragraph 0015). The sum of these is greater than 0.2 cm3/g.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Yoon et al. discloses the volume ratio of micropores to mesopores may be 1:1 to 1:10 which corresponds to 0.1-1 overlapping a majority of both claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 36, Yoon et al. discloses the hydrocarbon having a N-group can be phenol formaldehyde novolac (paragraph 0021). Phenol formaldehyde novolac has a number-average molecular weight ranging from 500-3000 Daltons.
Regarding claim 37, Yoon et al. discloses N-groups such as pyridine and pyrrole (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 39, Yoon et al. does not disclose a mass ratio of activated carbon particles to the nitrogen-functionalized organic compound.
Hou et al. discloses the quaternary ammonium salt and activated carbon are mixed in a mass ratio of 1.75:1 to 3.81:1 (1.75-3.81) (paragraph 0048). This falls within the claimed range of 0.05-19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a larger mass of quaternary ammonium salt than activated carbon to ensure the quaternary ammonium salt functional groups were fixed on the surface of the activated carbon (paragraph 0028). The quaternary ammonium salts are needed to remove the negatively charged bromate ions or other contaminants in water (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 40, Hou et al. discloses the quaternary ammonium salt and activated carbon are mixed in a mass ratio of 1.75:1 to 3.81:1 (1.75-3.81) (paragraph 0048). This falls within the claimed range of 0.11-19.
Regarding claim 41, Hou et al. discloses the quaternary ammonium salt and activated carbon are mixed in a mass ratio of 1.75:1 to 3.81:1 (1.75-3.81) (paragraph 0048). This has major overlap with the claimed range of 0.11-3.
Regarding claim 42, Hou et al. discloses the quaternary ammonium salt and activated carbon are mixed in a mass ratio of 1.75:1 to 3.81:1 (1.75-3.81) (paragraph 0048). This has major overlap with the claimed range of 0.33-3.
Regarding claim 43, Hou et al. discloses the quaternary ammonium salt is a chloride (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 44, Hou et al. discloses the quaternary ammonium salt is (3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl) dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (QUAB342) (paragraph 0035). This compound has dodecyl which is a carbon alkyl chain with 12 carbons.
Regarding claim 49, Yoon et al. discloses the N-doped activated carbon can be in the size range of 0.05-100 micrometers encompassing the entire claimed range.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Hou et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US20160038871).
Regarding claim 2 and 3, modified Yoon et al. discloses the carbon sorbent of claim one, but does not disclose the amount of fixed carbon.
Li et al. discloses the use of activated carbon as a sorbent in wet scrubber units (paragraph 0010). The sorbent composition comprises a carbonaceous sorbent such as powder activated carbon (paragraph 0017). The solid sorbent can include at least 10 wt.% fixed carbon and can not exceed 95 wt.% (paragraph 0050) encompassing the claimed ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. with fixed carbon amounts in Li et al. because a relatively low fixed carbon amount is required for sequestration of contaminants due to other components in the solid sorbent (paragraph 0050). However, a fixed carbon amount that is too low will increase impurities like ash on the raw material which can clog pores and reduce adsorption capacity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Hou et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 above, and further in view of Chang (CN108889274A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoon et al. discloses the sorbent of claim 1, but does not disclose loading metals of iron, calcium, and titanium.
Chang discloses a supported activated carbon including polymer-based activated carbon and K supported on the surface of the activated carbon (paragraph 0007). The surface of the activated carbon can also be loaded with one, two, or more of the following metal elements: Ca, Ti, and Fe (paragraph 0075). The loaded metals of Ca, Ti, and Fe account for 0.01-3 wt% of the activated carbon (paragraph 0076). 3 wt% surpasses the minimum of the combined metals of 2.05 wt%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. by loading the metals in Chang with the specific amounts because the high loading capacity of metals has better adsorption when used to adsorb toxic gases (paragraph 0088). These metals on a carbon sorbent not only increase adsorption but make it applicable to a larger number of treatments for pollutants.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Hou et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 above, and further in view of Pollack et al. (US20110076210).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Yoon et al. discloses the carbon sorbent of claim one, but does not disclose nitrogen-to-carbon mass ratio on a dry weight basis. The ratio used in Hou et al. to reject claims 39-42 is a liquid solution.
Pollack et al. discloses a sorbent for the removal of mercury including a dry admixture of a porous mercury adsorptive material and at least one agent that has a nitrogen functional group (paragraph 0014). The porous material is made of activated carbon (paragraph 0013). The nitrogen functional group agent is from 15-70 wt% of the composition (paragraph 0013). The wt% of nitrogen for 3.2-to-1000 nitrogen-to-carbon is 3.2/1003.2 *100 = 0.319% and 5.0-to-1000 is 0.50%, so the reference is greater than the claimed minimums.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. to have a high nitrogen-to-carbon mass ratio in the sorbent because increasing the suppression agent (the organic nitrogen compound) improves the mercury adsorption (paragraph 0039). The low activated carbon content removes mercury from flue gas streams effectively while also providing stability (paragraph 0039).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Hou et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 above, and further in view of Mitchek et al. (US20260077333).
It should be noted that while US20260077333 has a common inventor with the instant application, the US20260077333 reference claims priority to more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoon et al. discloses the carbon sorbent of claim one, but does not disclose thermogravimetric analysis of the activated carbon particles.
Mitchek et al. discloses a sorbent composition including primarily activated carbon (paragraph 0010). The spherical granular activated carbon sorbent has a TGA wt. loss % (400 to 750 °C) of typically no more than 0.35% (paragraph 0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the sorbent of Yoon et al. to have a TGA wt. loss % of no more than 0.35 wt.% because it is a lower TGA weight loss compared to industry standard GAC (granular activated carbon) (paragraph 0156). Additionally, a low wt.% loss under high temperatures would indicate that the carbon sorbent has high thermal stability making it applicable to more settings.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoon et al. discloses the carbon sorbent of claim one, but does not disclose thermogravimetric analysis of the activated carbon particles.
Mitchek et al. discloses a sorbent composition including primarily activated carbon (paragraph 0010). The spherical granular activated carbon sorbent has a TGA wt. loss % (400 to 750 °C) of typically no more than 0.35% (paragraph 0123). Mitchek et al. does not disclose a TGA for temperatures between 750 and 900°C, however, it is the position of the examiner that there would be an at least 1 wt.% loss of activated carbon if the upper range of temperature was used in TGA analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the sorbent of Yoon et al. to have a TGA wt. loss % of no more than 0.35 wt.% because it is a lower TGA weight loss compared to industry standard GAC (granular activated carbon) (paragraph 0156). Additionally, a low wt.% loss under high temperatures would indicate that the carbon sorbent has high thermal stability making it applicable to more settings.
Claims 22, 23, 50, 57, 62, 63, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Hou et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 above, and further in view of Mitchek et al. (US20220250034).
It should be noted that while US20220250034 has a common inventor with the instant application, the US20220250034 reference claims priority to more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, modified Yoon et al. discloses the carbon sorbent of claim one, but does not disclose a ball pan hardness.
Mitchek et al. discloses a method for treating contaminated aquatic sediments with a dual-form particulate sorbent comprising activated carbon (paragraph 0006). The activated carbon has a ball pan hardness of at least 40% and no more than 70% (paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. by having a ball pan hardness between 40% and 70% because a ball pan value that is too high can be too resistant to attrition and not break down at the treatment site while a value that is too low can be too soft and will breakdown during handling (paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 50, modified Yoon et al. discloses the carbon sorbent of claim one, but does disclose 50% by weight between 200 and 5000 micrometers.
Mitchek et al. discloses a majority of particles are provided in a 12x40 US mesh which is a particle size from 0.42 mm to 1.7 mm (420-1700 micrometers) (paragraph 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. with the particle size of Mitchek et al. because particle size of activated carbon has a major influence on adsorption properties (paragraph 0070). The kinetics of adsorption increase proportionally to the particle diameter squared (paragraph 0070), so a larger particle will have better adsorption.
Regarding claim 57, modified Yoon et al. discloses the activated carbon sorbent, but does not disclose the sorbent comprising at least 90 wt.% activated carbon particles.
Mitchek et al. discloses the particulate sorbent comprising activated carbon between 50 and 100 wt.% (paragraph 0073) encompassing the claimed range.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. by having a large wt.% of activated carbon particles in the sorbent because the sorbent is used to treat contaminated sediments (paragraph 0071). When the wt.% of activated carbon in the sorbent is high it can be efficiently deposited on the surface of the contaminated sediment (paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 62, modified Yoon et al. discloses the activated carbon sorbent, but does not disclose a rheology additive.
Mitchek et al. discloses a water-soluble biner is added after activation of the activated carbon (paragraph 0078). The smaller activated carbon particles are held together by the water-soluble binder creating an agglomerate of activated carbon particles (paragraph 0078). Agglomerates of carbon particles will increase the viscosity of the carbon sorbent, so the water-soluble binder has the same function as the rheology additive of the present application. The binder is present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 30 wt.% (paragraph 0078) which sufficiently satisfies the claimed range of 5 to 50 wt.% see calculations: 0.05/1 *100 = 5 wt.% and 0.5/1 *100 = 50 wt.%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. by adding the water-soluble binder because it can hold together smaller activated carbon particles (paragraph 0078). When particle size of the sorbent material is too fine the sorbent particles can be carried away by dynamic forces (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 63, Mitchek et al. discloses the binder is present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 30 wt.% (paragraph 0078) encompassing the claimed wt.% of rheology additive. The binder material can be in the form of an aqueous solution and is mixed with the activated carbon particles (paragraph 0095). The amount of carbon in the sorbent is between 50 and 100 wt.% (paragraph 0073).
Both the amounts of binder and activated carbon are result-effective variables. The binder holds together smaller activated carbon particles (paragraph 0078). Changing the amount of binder and carbon in the sorbent will influence the particle size of activated carbon; more binder will increase the particle size and less will decrease. As discussed earlier, the kinetic of adsorption increase proportionally to the particle diameter squared and particles that are too fine will be carried away by dynamic forces (paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In e Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 65, Mitchek et al. discloses the water-soluble binder can be guar gum, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), or hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (HPMC) (paragraph 0095).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Hou et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 36, 37, 39-44, and 49 above, and further in view of Eum et al. (KR101978395B).
Regarding claim 55, modified Yoon et al. discloses the activated carbon sorbent of claim one, but does not disclose the sorbent comprising water and the wt.% of activated carbon particles.
Eum et al. discloses an apparatus for removing harmful substances in a substance to be treated (paragraph 0015). The apparatus comprises a filter cartridge into which a substance to be treated flows (paragraph 0015). The filter cartridge includes a first nano-coated biofilter (paragraph 0015). The first biofilter is manufactured by preparing a coating slurry with 10 to 20 wt% activated carbon and water (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Yoon et al. by making the activated carbon sorbent into a slurry to be coated on filters. The activated carbon in the bio-filters adsorbs harmful components and decomposes them into microorganisms (paragraph 0053).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights