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 .
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with terminology lacking antecedent basis, wherein previously unintroduced terms are improperly referred to as “the”, “said” or the equivalent, or it being unclear or ambiguous as to what method step or structural feature is referenced by the terminology including:
claim 1, “the site of the use”, “the volume of adsorbent medium” (a total volume of adsorbent medium in a respective one or in each of the at least one adsorption reactor before the at least one removing step?);
claim 4 “the end of contact”;
claim 5 “the end of the contact step” and “the rinsing step”;
claim 10 “the next regeneration step”, “the freshness”, “the volume of bed treated” and “the iodine value”;
claim 11 “the removed portion” (total of all of the medium removed during the total of all the removing steps?);
claim 13 “the freshness”, “the bed volume” and “the iodine value”;
claim 14 “the fluid to be treated”; and
claim 15 “the regenerated adsorbent medium” and “the adsorption reactor from which the adsorbent medium to be regenerated originated”.
The claims are also replete with terminology referring to a single method step or structural feature which is inconsistent with preceding recitation of there being at least one of such method step or structural feature (singular or plural), including:
claim 1 “at least a portion” vs. later recitation of “said portion” and “at least one adsorption reactor” vs. later recitation of “the adsorption reactor”;
claim 9, “the adsorption reactor that was regenerated vs. recitation of “removing…from…at least one adsorption reactor”; and
claims 14 and 15 “at least one adsorption reactor” vs. later recitation of “the adsorption reactor”.
In claim 12, meaning and scope of “at least one implementation of a regeneration method according to claim 1” is unclear or ambiguous as to whether any one of or each of the method steps of claim 1 is being referenced.
Thus, claims 14 and 15, which recite a “unit for implementing the method according to claim 12” and “unit according to claim 14” are similarly unclear or ambiguous.
Claim limitations “at least one means for removing adsorbent media” and “at least one means for introducing adsorbent media” in claim 14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description lacks any disclosure of whether such “means for removing” and “means for introducing” concern any particular structure such as conduits, pumps, valves or other fluid handling features Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “at least one means for removing adsorbent media” and “at least one means for introducing adsorbent media” in claim 14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) . However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions, as clarified above in the Claim Interpretation portion of the Office Action.
Independent apparatus claim 14, as well as dependent system claim 15, recites the structural limitations of a treatment unit, at least one adsorption reactor, at least one means for removing adsorbent media from the reactor and at least one means for introducing media into the reactor, accompanied by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language, including implementing the method according to method claim 12 which depends from and thus incorporates the limitations of independent method claim 1 from which claim 12 depends and also contains language regarding intended use for “removing pollutants contained in the fluid”.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating an apparatus worded as a disclosed device (or “system”), nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
Thus, claims 14 and 15 are interpreted as apparatus comprising the claimed structural limitations and being capable of use for the method of claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Felch et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0061134 (Felch).
For claim 14, Felch discloses a fluid treatment unit for implementing the method according to 12, said treatment unit comprising:
- at least one adsorption reactor for pollutants contained in the fluid to be treated, the reactor comprising an adsorbent medium within it (Abstract, [0003, 0012] re carbon adsorbent utilized in a water treatment system and regeneration carried out within the water treatment system itself, i.e. “on site”, and [0016-0020 re regeneration of the carbon sorbent utilized in a granulated activated carbon contactor or GAC/water contactor or “reactor” 12, the regeneration carried out in a carbon regeneration circuit 25 and wet air regeneration (WAR) unit 16 of such circuit as described in [0020]),
- at least one means (pumps 31) for removing adsorbent media from the adsorption reactor (figure 2a and [0018 and 0019 re the spent GAC 20 is delivered from the GAC/water contactor 12 to the WAR unit 16 in a manner that does not damage the GAC particles 14, such as by providing pump(s) 31 as an air lift pump, a low shear centrifugal pump, or a diaphragm pump (or the like)]) , and
- at least one means (P) for introducing adsorbent media into the adsorption reactor 12 (figure 2a and [0026 and 0034…”Once the spent GAC 20 has been regenerated in the WAR unit 16, the regenerated GAC 46 may be directed back to the GAC/water contactor 12 on a continuous or intermittent basis from outlet 48 of the WAR unit 16 as shown in FIG. 3C. It is appreciated that one or more valves (V) coolers, heaters, sensors or pumps (P) may be included in any of the illustrated and/or described flow paths shown in any of the figures to facilitate the timing, properties, and extent of the flow of the particular components]).
As discussed in the Claim Interpretation Section above, the Specification does not limit either of such at least one means to any particular type(s) of structure.
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Claims 14 and 15 are thus interpreted as only positively recited or limited to the claimed unit, at least one adsorbent reactor and the claimed respective means, and merely being capable of being utilized in claims 1 and 12. See detailed explanation in the above Claim Interpretation section
In the instant case, the disclosed Fento apparatus functions to maintain a GAC adsorbent in an adsorbent contactor or reactor, which removes impurities from water being treated and to deliver spent GAC to a regeneration unit and then deliver treated GAC back to the adsorbent contactor or reactor, hence is inherently capable of functioning to contain a modified content of a treatment medium contained in the regeneration unit, hence fully anticipates claim 14.
For claim 15, Fento further discloses the apparatus or system as further comprising at least one regeneration reactor comprising an adsorbent medium inlet line originating from said at least one adsorption reactor and an outlet line allowing reintroduction of the regenerated adsorbent medium into at least one adsorption reactor identical to or different from the adsorption reactor from which the absorbent medium to be regenerated originated (Figure 2A, and [0019 and 0034] illustrating and describing regeneration vessel or reactor having an inlet line 20 to receive medium fed thereto, and an outlet line through pump 31 (P) to reintroduce the regenerated medium into the adsorption reactor]), (also see [0020 re the regeneration being under conditions “to oxidize (i.e. chemically treat) and/or dissolve” adsorbed organic materials off of the GAC adsorbent, in an embodiment including utilizing an oxygenated liquid traveling through WAR unit 16]) .
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felch et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0061134 (Felch) in view of Bento et al PGPUBS Document US 2008/0286193 (Bento) . Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Felch discloses: a method for regeneration of at least a portion of the adsorbent medium of at least one adsorption reactor implemented in a unit for treating a fluid, said regeneration method being carried out on the site of use of the adsorption reactor (Abstract, [0003, 0012] re carbon adsorbent utilized in a water treatment system and regeneration carried out within the water treatment system itself, i.e. “on site”, and [0016-0020 re regeneration of the carbon sorbent utilized in a granulated activated carbon contactor or GAC/water contactor or “reactor” 12, the regeneration carried out in a carbon regeneration circuit 25 and wet air regeneration (WAR) unit 16 of such circuit as described in [0020]) and comprising:
- at least one step of removing at least a portion of the adsorbent medium from said at least one adsorption reactor, in which said adsorbent medium portion represents a volumetric amount less than or equal to 50% of the volume of absorbent medium (figure 2A illustrates movement of activated carbon sorbent through line 20 towards and into WAR regeneration unit 16 with assistance of pumps 31 as described in [0018 and 0019]; “at least a portion” reads on or is interpreted as, any amount of, or a total of, the adsorbent medium being regenerated, and last 3 lines of [0036 re “After one or more treatments of a wastewater stream, at least a portion of the GAC will become spent.”]), and
- at least one chemical regeneration step [0020 re the regeneration being under conditions “to oxidize and/or dissolve” adsorbed organic materials off of the GAC adsorbent, in an embodiment including utilizing an oxygenated liquid traveling through WAR unit 16])
Claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom differ by requiring wherein the chemical regeneration steps(s) comprise/comprising a step of bringing said portion of adsorbent medium into contact with a regeneration solution comprising water and sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
Bento teaches regeneration of GAC, such as utilized for water treatment adsorption processes [0003, 0017], the regeneration employing chemical regeneration employing an aqueous solution of alcohol and alkali, preferably NaOH, in combination with oxidant [0017-0018 and 0035] .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of utilizing and regenerating water treatment adsorbent medium, to have supplemented the at least one chemical regeneration step employed by Felch, to include an aqueous solution of alcohol and alkali comprising NaOH, in combination with the oxidant, as taught by Bento, since Bento teaches that such type of regeneration can be performed on-site, economically, and at relatively low temperatures [0017, 0021, 0031] and importantly, yields a regenerated GAC adsorption capacity, nearly equal to that of fresh GAC, and removes a surprisingly large amount of adsorbed impurities, such as colorant, from spent GAC in comparison to other chemical GAC regeneration methods [0025].
For claim 2, Felch teaches wherein said adsorbent medium portion is removed from said at least one adsorption reactor 12 and is introduced into a regeneration reactor (WAR unit 16) before the regeneration step [0019 and 0020, 0020 stating “Once at least some spent GAC 20 is delivered to the WAR unit 16 of the carbon regeneration circuit 25, the spent GAC 20 may undergo a wet air regeneration or reactivation]
For claim 3, Bento teaches wherein the regeneration solution is at a temperature of from 30 to 40°C during the chemical regeneration step [0029 specifying the regeneration process working at between about 20-70 degrees C].
It would have been also obvious to have applied such moderate temperatures, as urged by Bento at [0017], to facilitate the regeneration process being implemented on-site.
For claim 4, Bento further teaches wherein at the end of contact with the regeneration solution, the adsorbent medium is rinsed using a rinsing solution, said rinsing solution comprising water [0021-0024 regarding optional washing, i.e. “rinsing” steps employing aqueous solutions].
For claim 7, Felch discloses wherein said adsorbent media portion represents a volumetric amount less than or equal to a volumetric amount ranging from 1% to 10% of the volume of adsorbent medium ([0029, 0034-0037 re the system having two or more plural, interconnected recirculation circuits in parallel so that only a portion of the carbon is removed and regenerated in a batch or semi-batch operation, enabling the treatment of water and the regeneration of spent GAC, both being continuous or substantially continuous, thus suggesting only a small percentage of the total volume of adsorbent medium of the total volume of adsorbent medium of the entire system]).
Such relative volumetric amounts of adsorbent medium are deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize flow volume amounts of water being treated and continuousness of the water treatment and adsorbent regeneration to a particular water treatment application. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
For claim 8, Felch discloses wherein the fluid to be treated is chosen from water, urban effluent, and industrial effluent [0003, 0013 re water treatment system]; or the adsorbent medium is chosen from granular activated carbon, anion exchange resin, biomaterials, molecularly imprinted polymers and mineral materials [0013 re the medium being GAC].
For claim 9, the method further comprising a step of introducing at least one regenerated adsorbent medium portion into at least one adsorption reactor, identical to or different from the adsorption reactor containing the adsorbent medium portion that was regenerated [0026 re regenerated GAC medium being returned from outlet 48 of the WAR unit 16 back to the same or identical GAC water contactor or adsorption reactor 12 from which the GAC was withdrawn] .
For claim 10, Felch discloses the method further comprising being implemented periodically, comprising a step of determining the next regeneration step based on the freshness of the adsorbent medium, characterized for example by the rate of reduction of at least one target pollutant, and/or by the volume of bed treated and/or by the iodine value of the adsorbent medium (see [0018 re “once spent GAC is present…to the WAR unit 16 for the wet air regeneration of the spent GAC 20 by oxidation and/or by solubilization of organic compound-containing compounds adsorbed on the GAC particles 14], and [0027 re at least two continuous cycles of the liquid 40 through the spent GAC 20], hence implying such step of determining, being based on either sensing or an observation of the adsorbent no longer being effective, also see [0035 re the regeneration being done on a batch or semi-batch basis]) .
For claim 11, Bento teaches wherein the removed portion of adsorbent medium has a real degree of reduction of at least one target pollutant ranging from 40% to 80% ([0050] or Table 2).
It would have been further obvious that the step of chemically regenerating the GAC adsorbent with an aqueous NaOH solution, would have the capacity to remove a surprisingly large amount of adsorbed colorant from spent GAC in comparison to other chemical GAC regeneration methods, and yields a regenerated GAC adsorption capacity nearly equal to that of fresh GAC as also taught by Bento in [0025].
For claim 12, Felch further discloses a method for treating a fluid in a treatment unit comprising at least one production phase, wherein said at least one production phase comprises the passage of a fluid to be treated through an adsorbent medium bed within at least one adsorption reactor, said treatment method comprising at least one implementation of a regeneration method according to claim 1 ([0003 and 0012 re the GAC adsorbent being employed to produce process water and figure 2A illustrates the GAC sorbent being maintained in rectangular vessel with side and bottom walls, the GAC thus forming a “bed” of adsorbent particles or granules]).
For claim 13, dependent on claim 12, Bento further teaches or suggests the method as comprising a step of measuring the freshness of the adsorbent medium, by measuring the actual reduction rate in at least one target pollutant by the adsorbent medium, by measuring the bed volume treated by the adsorbent medium, or by measuring the iodine value of the adsorbent medium ([0050] or Table 2).
It would have been further obvious that the step of chemically regenerating the GAC adsorbent with an aqueous NaOH solution, would have the capacity to remove a surprisingly large amount of adsorbed colorant from spent GAC in comparison to other chemical GAC regeneration methods, and yields a regenerated GAC adsorption capacity nearly equal to that of fresh GAC as also taught by Bento in [0025].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felch et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0061134 (Felch) in view of Bento et al PGPUBS Document US 2008/0286193 (Bento), as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-13 above, and further in view of Bergstrom patent 2,709,674 (Bergstrom).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 5 further differs by requiring wherein the chemical regeneration step further comprises a dewatering step at the end of the contact step with the regeneration solution, said dewatering step being carried out before the rinsing step.
Bergstrom teaches to dry (i.e. "dewater") granular sorbent bodies to remove color bodies, and gum-forming compounds from activated carbon (col 1, lines 20-24; col 3, lines 55-column 4, line 14); and the drying occurring before other regeneration seps (col 4, lines 40-54). Bergstrom is also directed to a continuous process for treating Liquids with granular adsorbent solids and relates particularly to a method and apparatus for drying the used adsorptive solids in such a process before the used solids are regenerated (column 1, lines 15-19).
It would have been also obvious to have further modified the Felch method, by including such drying or dewatering step, since Bergstrom teaches that such step is effective to remove color bodies, and gum-forming compounds from the activated carbon.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felch et al PGPUBS Document US 2014/0061134 (Felch) in view of Bento et al PGPUBS Document US 2008/0286193 (Bento), as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-13 above, and further in view of Clifford et al patent 5,904,832 (Clifford).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 6, wherein the regeneration method further comprises a step of electrochemical regeneration of the adsorbent medium carried out before or after or during the chemical regeneration step.
Clifford teaches the use of activated carbon for the purification of drinking water, the tertiary treatment of sewage water, and, generally, the industrial use of activated carbon (Background Art-column 1, lines 15-20) and electrochemical regeneration of the activated carbon with advantage of such regeneration degrading oxidizable organic contaminants adsorbed on the activated carbon (col 3, ln 32-37 and col 4, ln 42-55).
Additionally, Felch discloses there being plural regeneration process steps , see [0037… the regeneration may be accomplished by any of the regeneration processes previously described herein].
It would have been additionally obvious to have also modified the Felch method by including such step of electrochemical regeneration of the adsorbent medium, as taught by Clifford, so as to degrade residual oxidizable organic contaminants adsorbed on the activated carbon (Clifford at col 3, ln 32-37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest, Dennis et al PGPUBS Document US 2016/0311701 is directed to regeneration of spent adsorption resin, including steps of bed performance monitoring [0052], chemically regenerated by NaOH [0065], rinsed [0068], and with the same adsorbent reactor unit containing each of reactor unit, regeneration unit and integral sections for passing adsorbent between the units in a loop (Abstract, figure 2, [0019-0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 encourage to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
09/18/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights