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
This is the response to amendment filed 01/12/2026 for application 18/558379.
Claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 10 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STANISLAUS (WO2018025104A1) in view of FOSTER (WO 2020252228) as evidenced by FISH (WO2019074894A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, STANISLAUS teaches a process for processing mixed plastics with pyrolysis and dichlorination of the mixed plastics to form a hydrocarbon product. (step a) – pyrolyzing waste plastic to thereby produce a recycled content pyrolysis gas (r-pygas))
STANISLAUS teaches in paragraph 27 that the pyrolysis process may be performed at a temperature of 300°C to 500°C or alternatively 325°C to 475°C. (peak pyrolysis temperature of from about 325°C to about 475°C)
STANISLAUS teaches in paragraph 41 that the first separation unit may be a condenser for separating a hydrocarbon liquid stream and a hydrocarbon gas stream.
The hydrocarbon gas stream is taught in paragraph 42 to comprise C1-C4 hydrocarbons, H2, and inert gases. Conversion is also taught in paragraph 47 to include C4+ components and the hydrocarbon gas stream would be expected to comprise a small amount of C4+ components.
The hydrocarbon gas stream can be introduced into a scrubber 70.
The scrubber 70 is taught in paragraph 79 to be used to remove at least a portion of chlorine.
The treated gas from the scrubber 70 may be sent to a second separating unit 60 to produce an olefin gas stream comprising ethylene, propylene, and others.
FOSTER is relied on to teach that it is known in the art to separate the combined gas products such as the olefin gas stream in STANIUSLAUS into polymer grade individual components with at least 99.9% purity.
FOSTER teaches in paragraph 40 of FOSTER that the products from polymer pyrolysis may be separated by processing them through a series of refrigeration, compression and distillation steps to allow for formation of polymer grade ethylene, propylene, isobutylene, butenes and butadiene with at least 99.9% purity. (step b) liquefying at least a portion of the r-pygas to thereby provide a recycled content liquified pyrolysis gas (r-LPyG)
Refrigerating the olefin gas stream in STANISLAUS has been considered liquefying a portion of the pyrolysis gases.
The motivation to separate out each component would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Separating out each component allows greater control over their use for a greater range of purposes.
For example, FISH teaches on paragraph 3 that C2-C5 materials that may be use in or as starting materials to produce plastics, fuels, and various downstream chemicals The C2-C5 materials may include ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, butane, butylene, pentane, and/or pentylene.
It would be further obvious to combine multiple 99.9% pure streams such as 99.9% purity propane, propylene, butane, butylene, pentane, and/or pentylene in different proportions such as 10 wt% to 80 wt% C3s, and 15 wt% to 75 wt% C4s, and 0.01 to 5 wt% C5s together for use in or as starting materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, given that FOSTER teaches that a 99.9% purity of individual components can be achieved, a process that is capable of reaching 99.9% purity for propene and/or butene would be expected to be capable of reaching 80% or less for propene or butene with the rest being C3-C5 hydrocarbons or C3 and C5 hydrocarbons respectively.
Having distilled out other components, the combined streams of 99.9% pure fraction of butene or any combination C3, or C4 or C5 fraction would be expected to comprise less than 200 ppmw of ethane and lighter components.
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).
(step c) purifying at least a portion of the r-LPyG to produce a premium r-LPyG comprising: i.) at least 97 weight percent of C3-C5 compounds, ii.) less than 2 weight percent of C6+ compounds, and iii.) less than 200 ppmw of ethane and lighter components)
Regarding claims 2-4, to reach 99.9% purity would require removing any other components such as water, C2 and lighter components and C6 and heavy components to arrives at a 99.9 % pure fraction of C3-C5 compounds.
FOSTER teach that it is known to treat gas fractions from pyrolysis in paragraphs 38 and 65-66 to remove water, in paragraph 67 to separate a C2- fraction, and in paragraphs 47 and 63 to separate out a C5+ fraction.
Regarding claim 5, STANISLAUS teaches that the scrubber 70 is taught in paragraph 79 to be used to remove at least a portion of chlorine. It would be obvious to further remove chlorine using known methods.
Regarding claim 9, a 99.9% fraction of C3-C5 compounds would comprise less than 95% of the C2- and C6+ compounds present.
Regarding claim 11, a 99.9% purity fraction of C3-C5 compounds may meet multiple characteristics defined in claim 11 such as comprising less than 1 weight percent of C6+ compounds.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, STANIUSLAUS teaches a scrubber 70 for removing chlorine. The scrubber 70 is further taught in paragraph 79 to comprise embodiments in which an adsorbent bed is employed.
Employing a similar scrubber for the liquefied olefin gases to remove chlorine would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art given that STANIUSLAUS teaches removing chlorine.
Furthermore, a 99.9% purity fraction of C3-C5 compounds would be expected to have removed the majority of contaminants or water present, including the removal of 90% of chloride or the removal of 90% of water present.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the water and nitrogen to be substantially separated (more than 90%) and removed.
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).
FOSTER also teaches in paragraph 40 that gas products may be processed through a series of refrigeration and compression and distillation steps to form ethylene, propylene, isobutylene, butenes and butadiene. (compression and cooling)
Regarding claims 12-13, FOSTER teaches in paragraph 48 that the contaminants in converting waste plastic into products include CO2 and chlorine and should be removed. FOSTER teaches 99.9 % purity fractions of C3, and C4 compounds.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the contaminants to be substantially separated and removed.
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).
Regarding claim 19, FOSTER teaches a series of steps that comprise refrigeration, compression and distillation.
Distillation may be considered expanding at least a portion of the product by allowing C2 or C1 products to vaporize.
Regarding claim 20, a 99.9 purity C3-C5 compounds as taught by modified STANISLAUS would comprise greater than 75 wt% C3-C4 components with a minor amount of C5 compounds.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STANISLAUS (WO2018025104A1) in view of FOSTER (WO 2020252228) as evidenced by FISH (WO2019074894A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 18-20 above, and further in view of BITTING (USPGPUB 2020/0369965).
The above discussion of STANISLAUS in view of FOSTER is incorporated herein by reference.
Storing the products such as propylene or butene or butadiene in liquid form in a storage for at least 2 hours or transporting the products over a distance more than a mile are both well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Production of the products such as propylene or butene or butadiene are not always performed at the site of use or processing and would be expected to be stored and transported to a separate site for use or processing.
For example, BITTING teaches in the abstract and paragraph 89 recycled compositions from the pyrolysis of waste plastic. The recycled compositions are taught in paragraph 37 to include propylene and butadiene.
The recycled compositions are taught in paragraph 78 and may be condensed as a liquid and stored in a storage facility in a storage tank.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the recycled compositions in a condensed/liquids state, or keeping the recycled composition at a temperature of less than 40 C and/or a pressure of at least 15 barg given the recycled compositions are taught to be condensed and stored as a liquid.
Given that BITTING teaches that the recycled compositions may be kept as a liquid, applying temperature and pressure to maintain the recycled compositions in a liquid form would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
BITTING teaches in paragraph in paragraph 174 facilities that are within 5 miles of each other, overlapping the range recited in claim 6.
BITTING do not teach any limits on storage time and transporting compositions of propylene and butadiene for more than 2 hours in a storage tank would be obvious depending on the distance to the site to be used or processed and a time of greater than 2 hours would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOSTER (WO 2020252228) as evidenced by STANISLAUS (WO2018025104A1) and as evidenced by FISH (WO2019074894A1)
FOSTER teaches a method for polyolefin pyrolysis with the effluent processing train for a steam cracker. The polyolefin is taught in paragraph 14 to be from plastic waste. It is stressed that FOSTER explicitly defines steam cracking as a type of pyrolysis process in paragraph 19.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the process is taught in paragraph 33 wherein a polyolefin is pyrolyzed to form pyrolysis products. (step a) – pyrolyzing waste plastic to thereby produce a recycled content pyrolysis gas (r-pygas))
The pyrolysis products are taught in paragraph 37 to be cooled into a cooled stream such that the C5+ portion of the products become a liquid to facilitate separation. An example is taught in paragraph 63 wherein products from pyrolysis are cooled to form cooled products 185.
(step b) liquifying at least a portion of the r-pygas to thereby provide a recycled content liquified pyrolysis gas (r-LPyG);
A depropanizer is taught in paragraph 67 to separate out a C2- portion.
FOSTER teaches in paragraph 40 that the gas products from polymer pyrolysis can be processed through a series of steps that include refrigeration and compression and distillation to form ethylene, propylene, isobutylene, butenes, and butadienes with at least 99.9% impurity.
Even though FOSTER teaches separation of the C5+ portion, a small amount of C5 compounds would be expected to be present. Furthermore FOSTER also teaches in paragraph 63 that the C5+fraction can be sent to a fractionator.
The motivation to separate out each component would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Separating out each component allows greater control over their use for a greater range of purposes.
For example, FISH teaches on paragraph 3 that C2-C5 materials that may be use in or as starting materials to produce plastics, fuels, and various downstream chemicals The C2-C5 materials may include ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, butane, butylene, pentane, and/or pentylene.
It would be further obvious to combine multiple 99.9% pure streams such as 99.9% purity propane, propylene, butane, butylene, pentane, and/or pentylene in different proportions such as 10 wt% to 80 wt% C3s, and 15 wt% to 75 wt% C4s, and 0.01 to 5 wt% C5s together for use in or as starting materials with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, given that FOSTER teaches that a 99.9% purity of individual components can be achieved, a process that is capable of reaching 99.9% purity for propene and/or butene would be expected to be capable of reaching 80% or less for propene or butene with the rest being C3-C5 hydrocarbons or C3 and C5 hydrocarbons respectively.
Having distilled out other components, the combined streams of 99.9% pure fraction of butene or any combination C3, or C4 or C5 fraction would be expected to comprise less than 200 ppmw of ethane and lighter components.
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).
(step c) purifying at least a portion of the r-LPyG to produce a premium r-LPyG comprising: i.) at least 97 weight percent of C3-C5 compounds, ii.) less than 2 weight percent of C6+ compounds, and iii.) less than 200 ppmw of ethane and lighter components)
FOSTER teaches in paragraph 33 that the pyrolysis process may be heated to a temperature between 500 C – 900 C. A temperature of 500 C would be close to the claimed range of 325-475 C.
STANISLAUS teaches a method of low severity pyrolysis for waste plastics.
STANISLAUS teaches in paragraph 27 of STANISLAUS that the pyrolysis process may be performed at a temperature of 300 C to 500 or alternatively 325 to 475 C. (peak pyrolysis temperature of from about 325 C to about 475 C)
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the pyrolysis products at 475 C and 500 C to have similar properties.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 2, the C4 gas fraction is taught in paragraph 38 to be washed with water and then dried to remove water. FOSTER also teaches in paragraphs 65-66 an example in which C4- fraction is sent to a quench tower where water is removed. The C4- gas fraction is compressed, washed and passed to process gas driers.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, FOSTER teaches in an example in paragraph 67 where a depropanizer is used on an effluent from process gas driers to form a C3+ fraction and separate out a C2- portion.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, FOSTER teaches in paragraph 37 the products are cooled such that the C5+ portion becomes a liquid and the C5+ portion is separated. FOSTER teaches in an example in paragraph 63 wherein a C5+ fraction is separated from a C4- fraction.
Regarding claim 9, FOSTER teaches that the product fractions are distilled to form 99.9% purity fractions. A 99.9% fraction of C3-C5 components would comprise less than 95% of the C2- and C6+ compounds present from the cooled products 185 taught in paragraph 63. Cooled products 185 is prior to separation of C5+ compounds and C2- compounds.
Distillation to form 99.9 % purity fractions of compounds and combining them is well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 10, FOSTER further teaches in paragraph 23 that a Cx fraction includes a fraction where 50 wt% or more of the fraction corresponds to having x “number” of carbons. FOSTER teaches in paragraphs 65- 67 a C4- fraction 215 is processed and sent through a gas compressor, a wash stage, a gas drier and then to a depropanizer to generate a C3+ product and a C2- product.
The C3+ product would be expected to comprise primarily C3 and C4 compounds and would be expected to comprise at least 50wt% or more of the C3 and C4 compounds.
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).
Regarding claim 11, FOSTER teaches 99.9 % purity fractions of C3, and C4 compounds and may contain small traces of C5 compounds. A 99.9% purity fraction of C3-C5 components may meet multiple characteristics defined in claim 11 such as comprising less than 1 weight percent of C6+ compounds.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, in addition to the limitations addressed above, FOSTER teaches in paragraphs 52 and 54 that guard beds comprising adsorbents may be used to remove contaminants.
Multiple contaminants are taught in paragraphs 48-51 including chlorine.
FOSTER also teaches in paragraph 65 that water is dried and removed. FOSTER teaches 99.9 % purity fractions of C3, and C4 compounds. A 99.9% purity of C3-C5 components would be expected to have removed the majority of contaminants or water present, including the removal of 90% of chloride or the removal of 90% of water present.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the water and nitrogen to be substantially separated (more than 90%) and removed.
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).
FOSTER also teaches in paragraph 40 that gas products may be processed through a series of refrigeration and compression and distillation steps to form ethylene, propylene, isobutylene, butenes and butadiene. (compression and cooling)
Regarding claim 5, FOSTER teaches in paragraph 48 that polyolefins comprise contaminants that may be removed that include nitrogen, as well as chlorine and metals and CO2. FOSTER teaches in paragraph 38 that contaminant removal takes place to the C4- portion of pyrolysis products.
Regarding claims 12-13, FOSTER teaches in paragraph 48 that the contaminants include CO2 and chlorine and should be removed. FOSTER teaches a series of steps that produce 99.9 % purity fractions of C3, and C4 compounds.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the contaminants to be substantially separated and removed.
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).
Regarding claim 19, FOSTER teaches a series of steps that comprise refrigeration, compression and distillation.
Distillation may be considered expanding at least a portion of the product by allowing C2 or C1 products to vaporize.
Regarding claim 20, FOSTER teaches in paragraph 40 distillation to obtain 99.9 purity C3 and C4 compounds. It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to combine 99,9% purity C3 and C4 compounds with a trace of C5 compounds given that FISH teaches on paragraph 3 that C2-C5 materials that may be use in or as starting materials to produce plastics, fuels, and various downstream chemicals The C2-C5 materials may include ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, butane, butylene, pentane, and/or pentylene.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOSTER (WO 2020252228) as evidenced by STANISLAUS (WO2018025104A1) and as evidenced by FISH (WO2019074894A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 9-15, and 18-20 above, and further in view of BITTING (USPGPUB 2020/0369965).
The above discussion of FOSTER as evidenced by STANISLAUS and FISH is incorporated herein by reference.
Storing the products such as propylene or butene or butadiene in liquid form in a storage for at least 2 hours or transporting the products over a distance more than a mile are both well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Production of the products such as propylene or butene or butadiene are not always performed at the site of use or processing and would be expected to be stored and transported to a separate site for use or processing.
For example, BITTING teaches in the abstract and paragraph 89 recycled compositions from the pyrolysis of waste plastic. The recycled compositions are taught in paragraph 37 to include propylene and butadiene.
The recycled compositions are taught in paragraph 78 and may be condensed as a liquid and stored in a storage facility in a storage tank.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the recycled compositions in a condensed/liquids state, or keeping the recycled composition at a temperature of less than 40 C and/or a pressure of at least 15 barg given the recycled compositions are taught to be condensed and stored as a liquid.
Given that BITTING teaches that the recycled compositions may be kept as a liquid, applying temperature and pressure to maintain the recycled compositions in a liquid form would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
BITTING teaches in paragraph in paragraph 174 facilities that are within 5 miles of each other, overlapping the range recited in claim 6.
BITTING do not teach any limits on storage time and transporting compositions of propylene and butadiene for more than 2 hours in a storage tank would be obvious depending on the distance to the site to be used or processed and a time of greater than 2 hours would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
"[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)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's new amendments regarding the percentages of C3, C4, and C5 have necessitated new grounds of rejections. Applicant’s amendments appear to find support in table 1 of the specification as filed.
FISH (WO2019074894A1) teach that C2-C5 compounds such as ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, butane, butylene, pentane, and/or pentylene may be use in or as starting materials to produce plastics, fuels, and various downstream chemicals.
It would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine separated 99.9% purity fractions of C3 and C4 compounds for use in or as starting materials to produce plastics, fuels, and various downstream chemicals. C5 compounds may also be combined as they are also taught to be use in or as starting materials to produce plastics, fuels, and various downstream chemicals. Some small amounts of C5 compounds may be expected to either be present as a result of non-perfect separation of the fractions or be combined after for use.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights