DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 describes process steps that describe cracking a light alkane feedstock. The preamble describes incorporating those steps with a method of producing sponge iron, while lines 8-9 describe these steps also “for producing sponge iron” without reciting method steps for that production. The method steps recite hydroprocessing methods with an intended use for producing sponge iron. For examination purposes, although the sponge iron features will be treated, they are described in intended use terms in the claims.
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 1-4, 10, 14-21, 25, 27, 29-31, 34, 38 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, lines 4-6 describe separating products of the steam cracking containing hydrogen, methane and ethane, “further comprising ethylene, propylene and/or 1,2-butadiene”. However, it is unclear if the compounds following the words “further comprising” are intended to mean that these compounds are separated or if this stream contains these and they are separated from other compounds. For examination purposes, either scenario will be used given the ambiguity.
Claim 1, line 1 describes that their method is for producing sponge iron, but then lines 8-9 describe that the produced syngas is “for producing sponge iron”. The claims do not recite any method steps for producing sponge iron and the feature “for producing sponge iron” in lines 8-9 are intended use. They will be addressed in the action, but are written to be intended use features.
Claim 1, line 8 “using the resultant as a catalytic conversion feedstock” and then line 9 “the energy for the catalytic conversion” is not clear. Line 8 recites a mixed gas as a feedstock without the specific recitation of use of a catalyst, while line 9 recites energy used for the catalytic conversion without the recitation of a catalyst. This feature will be treated as optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendejas-Martinez (ZM) (WO 2017/046653) and in view of Shekunova et al. “Cracking of Light hydrocarbons in the presence of electrically heated metal wires” and in view of Lee et al. “By-product hydrogen from steam cracking of natural gas liquids: potential for large-scale hydrogen fuel production. . “.
ZM describes feeding a stream of hydrocarbon-containing gas, such as methane, natural gas or liquified petroleum gas into a reactor 12 (page 8, lines 5-8), below the reactor zone 14 (page 8, lines 11-12) so that the high temperature in the reduced iron flowing down from the reduction zone cracks the hydrocarbon into carbon and hydrogen components (page 8, lines 13-15). The syngas produced is then catalytically reacted with water to create a water-gas-shift reaction to produce some H2 and CO2 (page 6, lines 1-5, pg. 8, lines 24-30) in order to reduce the CO content to obtain the H2/CO ratio desired (page 13, last para). Methane is a light alkane. ZM explains that this high temperature reducing gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which are combined with solid iron ores is then reacted to produce direct reduced iron (DRI) (page 7, last para.).
The spent reduced gas is then passed to a humidifier (page 8, last para, see 30). This stream is recycled back into reactor 14, where ZM explains that “significant amounts of water and carbon dioxide produced as by-products from the reaction of hydrogen and carbon monoxide with the iron oxide content of the iron ore 18” are present (page 8, lines 24-27).
As to the use of electrical energy, ZM states that their process reduces the requirements of electrical energy (page 8, line 10), but ZM does not teach that the methane is made by steam cracking using electrical energy, that the process includes separating the products that comprising hydrogen, methane and ethane from other by-products, such as ethylene, propylene and/or 1,3-butadiene or that the isolated stream is then combined with water and/or CO2 to make syngas.
As to the use of electrical energy, Shekunova describes a process of cracking light hydrocarbons in the presence of electrically heated metal wires (title). The process describes light hydrocarbon fractions made by steam cracking of oil fractions under the action of electrical current sent through wires in the presence of a catalysts (page 446, right col, last para). The precursor hydrocarbon can have the formula C2-C5 (page 446, right col, last para). In the table, varying yields are achieved based on the types of metal used and the temperature applied (see table on pg 2018). Generally, however, Shekunova explains that the catalytic activity of the catalyst showed higher activity when heated using electrical energy (page 446, right col, lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ electrical energy sent through wires used for steam cracking, as taught by Shekunova for use with the steam cracking of ZM because the catalytic activity of the catalyst is known to produce higher activity when heated using electrical energy.
As to the production of H2, CH4, CH3CH3, ethylene or propylene or 1,3-butadiene from the steam cracking step, Lee describes a method of steam cracking a hydrocarbon feedstock (abstract). The method shows that the formula for steam cracking of alkanes, such as ethane, propane and butane (all light alkanes) (see page 20145, right col, last para) are shown to be:
CnH2n+2 + Steam [Wingdings font/0xE0] aH2 + bCH4 + cC2H4 + dC3H6 + eH4C8 + fC5+ (Formula 1 of Lee).
Lee then shows that specific compounds produce a list of feedstock yields (see table 1). This includes ethane (when Ethane is used as the feedstock), Ethylene, propylene, hydrogen, ethane (see table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the steam cracking step of ZM and Shekunova produces a mixture of hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethylene and propylene, as taught by Lee because Lee shows that steam cracking a hydrocarbon precursor is known to produce these products.
As to the step involving separating H2, CH4, CH3CH3 to add with either water and/or CO2 to make syngas, ZM describes purifying the recycled stream using a CO2 separation unit, Fig. 1, 56 and a scrubbing unit, Fig. 1, 34), but does not specifically teach the separation described in Claim 1.
As to the separation feature, Lee teaches that a number of different byproducts are produced, to include ethylene and propylene (page 20145, right col, last para). Figure 2 of Lee shows a steam cracking system where a hydrocarbon is fed into the system (see Fig. 2, fuel gas). In the post processing steps, the stream is separated and fractionated into various compositions of ethylene, propylene, other byproducts (see Fig. 2). The ethylene and propylene products and byproducts are separated from the main tail gas stream leaving the tail gas (Fig. 2, fractionation step). From Figure 2, methane is a main product in the tail gas (see Fig. 2). Lee explains that this process produces a methane-rich stream (page 20146, left col, para. 1, 2), which ZM explains is an effective feed stream for processing their DRI iron (page 8, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steam cracked tail gas of Lee, which removes ethylene and propylene from the methane-rich gas, with the process of making DRI iron of ZM because ZM describes use of methane gas and Lee describes a method of making a methane-rich stream.
As to Claim 15, ZM teaches feeding methane, natural gas to be cracked in the system (page 8, lines 5-6).
As to Claim 21, Shekunova teaches heating at a temperature of 850 degrees C (446, left col, para. 1).
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 210885292).
The references do not disclose that the reaction is in a tube and is heated by an induction coil (Claim 2) and that the induction coil is wrapped around the outside of the reaction tube (Claim 3).
Wang describes an electromagnetic induction heating device (title). The device describes a cracking tube combined with induction heating that includes an electromagnetic heating coil (abstract). The induction coil surrounds the outside of the cracking tube (page 3, para. 1). This structure allows a compact structure and reduces the volume of the device (page 3, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a tubular reactor that is heated with an induction coil configured by wrapping the coil around the outside of the reactor tube, as taught by Wang for use with the cracking device of ZM, Shekunova and Lee because this configuration is known to lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gueh (US Pub.: 2015/0275108).
The references do not teach that the frequency of the induction coil is from either 5-20 KHz or from 50-3,000 Hz.
Gueh describes a gasification device using an induction coil for making syngas (para. 2, 3, 21, 22). The device converts a fuel feed to synthesis gas (para. 23) using an electrical power supply (para. 43). The system employs steam cracking (para. 5) and it uses a coil that can include a hollow induction coil (para. 93). The device converts a fuel feed to synthesis gas (para. 23) using an electrical power supply (para. 43). The power used with the induction coil device is from 60kW to 735kW (para. 393).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to power the induction coils from 60kW to 735kW, as taught by Gueh for use with the induction coils of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang because this power level is known to effectively produce syngas made by cracking.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gueh (US Pub.: 2015/0275108) and in view of Yalcin et al. “Design and Analysis of Induction Heating System with Parallel Resonance Inverter”.
Shekunova explains that their steam cracking process is performed using electrically charged wires (page 446, right col, lines 9-11) in the form of a coil (Experimental, para. 2).
The references do not describe the other features of the claim.
Gueh describes a gasification device using an induction coil for making syngas (para. 2, 3, 21, 22). The device converts a fuel feed to synthesis gas (para. 23) using an electrical power supply (para. 43). The power used with the induction coil device is from 60kW to 735kW (para. 393).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an induction coil that is powered from 60kW to 735kW charged with electrical power, as taught by Gueh for use with the cracking step for producing syngas of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang because powering an induction coil at this level is known to lead to predictable and expected syngas production.
The references do not teach that the power supply forms a circuit in parallel with a capacitor.
Yalcin describes the design of induction heating systems (title). Yalcin explains that use of a parallel connection of the system, it enables load current adjustment with capacitors (page 634, right col., para. 2). In one system, Yalcin shows that a capacitor regulates the voltage despite fluctuations in the input voltage (page 635, right col, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the circuit of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang in a parallel circuit and with a capacitor, as taught by Yalcin because Yalcin explains that both of these systems facilitate regulating the voltage of the system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gueh (US Pub.: 2015/0275108).
The references do not describe that the induction coil is one of those listed in Claim 14.
Gueh describes a gasification device using an induction coil for making syngas (para. 2, 3, 21, 22). The device converts a fuel feed to synthesis gas (para. 23) using an electrical power supply (para. 43). The system employs steam cracking (para. 5) and it uses a coil that can include a hollow induction coil (para. 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a hollow induction coil, as taught by Gueh for use in the syngas heating of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang and it would lead to expected and predictable results.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sibur LPG.
ZM describes feeding liquified petroleum gas to the reactor (see page 8, lines 5-7, LPG). ZM does not specifically describe the composition of the LPG.
Sibur describes the composition of liquified petroleum gas (title) contains 70% butane and 30% propane (see L.P.G. or 27% propane, 14% iso-butane and 14% n-butane (see LPG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a LPG gas stream that contains 27% propane, 14% iso-butane and 14% n-butane, as taught by Sibur for use with the LPG stream of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang because LPG streams are known to have this composition.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ward (EA 029413).
The references do not describe what the water-oil ratio is.
Ward describes a hydrocarbon cracking feedstock used in a steam cracking process (title). In one example, Ward describes steam cracking an ethane and propane mixture in the presence of a heated coil to use a water to oil ratio of 0.37 (see page 13, para. 3). Other hydrocarbon starting compounds includes C2C4 paraffins (page 4, para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a water-to-oil composition of 0.37, as taught by Ward for use with the process of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang because this ratio is known to be effective in hydrocarbon cracking processes.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chewter (US Pub.: 2011/0112314).
The references do not disclose the residence time of 0.1 to 1 s.
Chewter describes a steam cracking means using a coil heating-means (para. 143). The cracking of the hydrocarbon starting material may take place in an amount of 0.24 seconds (para. 0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to steam crack the hydrocarbon in about 0.24 seconds, as taught by Chewter for use with the process of ZM, Shekunova and Lee because cracking hydrocarbon using a heated coil is known to be effective within a time of 0.24 seconds.
Claim(s) 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng (CN 109852424), EPO Translation.
ZM teaches that the H2/CO ratio is in the range of 1.5 to 40 by volume percent (page 10, lines 26-27).
ZM describes wanting a certain H2 and CO ratio (page 13, last para) and to use water to shift the ratio (page 13, last para). ZM does not teach adjusting the composition of the syngas such that the volume percent content of CO + H2 is greater than 90%.
Zeng describes a method for iron making (page 1, line 1) that employs coal gasification using a reducing gas made up of CO and H2 that is then reacted with iron ore (para. 5). The reaction is between syngas and iron ore (para. 9). The volume percentage of CO and H2 in the syngas is from 60-90 vol % (para. 67).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the syngas volume and shift the CO + H2 content to greater than 90%, as taught by Zeng for use with the process of ZM, Shekunova, and Lee because Zeng explains that this ratio of CO and H2 is desirable in order to process iron ore.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhattacharyya (WO 99/15459) and in view of Eyman (US Pub.: 2004/0166056).
The references do not describe the features of Claim 31.
Bhattacharyya describes a nickel catalyst used to catalyze a hydrocarbon compound to form syngas (abstract). The nickel catalyst is supported on an alumina support (see Fig. 1).
The reference describes reacting a hydrocarbon compound at elevated temperature from 400-1000 degrees C (page 34, lines 21-23) in the presence of oxygen (see formula on page 34). Alternatively, Bhattacharyya states that steam can be used (page 34, line 28 and page 35, lines 8-9). The space velocity can range from 10 hr-1 to 1 x 109 hr-1 (page 35, lines 1-2). The volume ratio of H2O/CH4 may range from 1:1 to 2:1 (page 37, lines 19-25). As to the pressure, 0.1Mpa is 1 atmosphere. Although Bhattacharyya does not specifically state that the cracking step is performed at an elevated pressure, but since 0.1Mpa overlaps ambient pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reaction will take place at ambient pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the hydrocarbon stream to a catalyst at a space velocity of 10 hr-1 to 1 x 109 hr-1 and heating the stream at a temperature range of 400-1000 degrees C to produce the vol ratio of H2O/CH4 to a range from 1:1 to 2:1 at ambient pressure, as taught by Bhattacharyya for use with the process of ZM, Shekunova and Lee because these process parameters are known to facilitate catalysis of hydrocarbons for making syngas.
Bhattacharyya describes use of a nickel and alumina-supported catalyst (See example 1), but does not describe how much nickel is in the catalyst.
Eyman describes a catalyst composition (title) that is known for steam cracking that includes nickel supported on alumina or MgO (para. 10). As to the amount of nickel, Eyman describes that the amount of nickel ranges from 5-15wt% (Claims 12-18, 38, 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ nickel in an amount of 5-15wt%, as taught by Eyman for use with the processes of ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Bhattacharyya because this amount is known to be effective in stream cracking.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Li (CN 101638742).
Li describes a nickel-based alloy for use in a furnace tube of a cracking furnace (title and abstract). Li explains in the background that it is known in the field that the tube of the cracking furnace can be made out of HK 40 material (abstract).
Caselaw states that "Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.).
A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference "teaches away" from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed."). See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed composition that expressly excluded an ingredient held anticipated by reference composition that optionally included that same ingredient); see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claimed composition was anticipated by prior art reference that inherently met claim limitation of "sufficient aeration" even though reference taught away from air entrapment or purposeful aeration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a cracking tube made out of HK40 material, as taught by Li for use with the process of hydrocarbon cracking in ZM, Shekunova, Lee and Wang because reaction tubes made out of this material is known in the prior art for use in these processes and is therefore not novel.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZM, Shekunova, Lee, Wang and Li as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kolios (KR 20180009764).
The references do not disclose the inner diameter of 50-250mm.
Kolios describes a ceramic tube (title). The process is used to produce syngas with steam in a reaction tube that is made out of stainless steel (page 3, first full para). In one example, Kolios explains that the inner diameter of the tube can range from 20-1,000mm (Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a reaction tube with an inner diameter of 20-1000mm, as taught by Kolios for use with the process of ZM, Shekunova, Lee, Wang and Li because this diameter is known to lead to predicably effective steam cracking of a stream to syngas.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Sibur describes a liquified petroleum gas (title) composition of 70% butane and 30% propane (see L.P.G. or 27% propane, 14% iso-butane and 14% n-butane (see LPG).
The reference does not describe a composition that contains propane from 30-45%, n-butane from 15-45% and iso-butane from 7-13%.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights