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 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the gas-liquid separated stream" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021204819 (to Adam et al.).
With respect to claim 1, Adam teaches a method for producing syngas containing hydrogen from waste plastics (page 25, lines 16-36), the method comprising:
S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and
pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas (page 25, lines 16-36);
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing
the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter/(adsorbent bed at 150-400oC) filled with a neutralizing
agent/(CaO) (page 22, lines 24-26);
S3 applying a voltage to a first mixed solution obtained
by mixing the waste plastic pyrolysis oil, washing water, and a
demulsifier to dehydrate the first mixed solution (page 11, lines 10-14, page 20, lines 15-36);
Adam teaches S4 hydrotreating a second mixed solution obtained by mixing
the first mixed solution dehydrated in the operation S3 and a
sulfur source to produce refined oil from which impurities are
removed (pages 8, line 16, and pages 24, line 31 through page 25, lines 1-12); and
S5 gasifying/cracking the refined oil from which impurities are removed (page 28, lines 5-13).
With respect to claim 6, Adam teaches wherein the voltage is applied
through at least one pair of vertical electrodes (page 20, lines 30-34).
With respect to claim 19, Adam teaches wherein in the operation S5,
a refined fraction separated by distilling/(distillation columns) the refined oil from which impurities are removed is gasified (within the steam cracker) (page 27, lines 33-37 and page 28, lines 1-10).
With respect to claim 20, Adam teaches wherein in the operation S5,
mixed oil obtained by mixing the refined oil from which
impurities are removed and petroleum hydrocarbons is gasified (within the steam cracker) (page 28, lines 5-10).
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.
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 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021204819 (to Adam et al.), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cantley et al. (US 2022/0135449 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Adam discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including desalting (dehydrating) a mixture solution comprising: a pyrolysis plastic oil, washing water, and a demulsifier by applying an electric field ("voltage") to the mixture to separate the water and oil mixture, where the water phase is subsequently separated from the oil phase (page 11, lines 10-14; page 20, lines 15-34); however, Adam fails to teach wherein the pyrolysis plastic oil is mixed in a greater volume than the washing water in the desalting process.
Cantley teaches a process for separating water and solids from a renewable feedstock, such as pyrolysis oils from plastic, and teaches an electrostatic precipitation/desalting method to separate water containing contaminants from the renewable feedstock (Abstract; [0010]-[0011]), wherein the method comprises mixing water, a renewable feedstock, and a demulsifier to form a mixture solution, and then applying a voltage to the mixture solution ([0011], [0036]). Cantley further teaches that the total amount of water in the ratio of water to feedstock may be anywhere from about 10% to about 50% of the total ([0035]) in order to provide a sufficient amount of water for the desalting process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the method of Adam comprise the dehydration (desalting) step wherein the amount of water in the mixture solution is from about 10% to about 50%, as taught by Cantley, because (i) both Adam and Cantley are drawn to an electrostatic desalting process, (ii) Cantley teaches workable water concentrations in the desalting process, and (iii) this merely involves application of a known operating condition of a known process into a similar process to yield predictable results, in order to provide a sufficient amount of water for the desalting process.
With respect to claim 3, Cantley further teaches wherein the total amount of water in the ratio of water to feedstock may be anywhere from about 10% to about 50% of the total (i.e., oil-to-water ratio of 1:0.11 to 1:1) ([0035]); which overlaps with the instantly claimed volume ratio of the pyrolysis plastic oil and washing water of "1:0.001 to 1:0.5".
With respect to claim 8, Adam discloses all claim limitations as set forth above; however, Adam is silent on specific conditions for operating the desalting/dehydration step and, thus, does not disclose that the dehydration is performed under a temperature of 20 °C to 300°C. Cantley teaches a process for separating water and solids from a renewable feedstock, such as pyrolysis oils from plastic, and teaches an electrostatic precipitation/desalting method to separate water containing contaminants from the renewable feedstock (Abstract; [0010]-[0011]), wherein the method comprises mixing water, a renewable feedstock, and a demulsifier to form a mixture solution, and then applying a voltage to the mixture solution ([0011], [0036]). Cantley further teaches that the operating temperature of the electrostatic desalting unit may be about 100°F to about 300°F, i.e., 37.8 °C to 148.9°C ([0034]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 20 °C to 300°C, in order to provide sufficient heat for carrying out the desalting step.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to carry out the dehydration (desalting) step of Adam in an electrostatic desalting unit at an operating temperature of about 37.8 °C to 148.9°C as taught by Cantley, in order to provide sufficient heat for carrying out the desalting step.
With respect to claim 9, Adam discloses all claim limitations as set forth above; however, Adam fails to teach wherein the ratio of moisture content in the oil feedstock to moisture content in the dehydrated oil phase is 1:0.0001 to 1:0.9.
Cantley teaches a process for separating water and solids from a renewable feedstock, such as pyrolysis oils from plastic, and teaches an electrostatic precipitation/desalting method to separate water containing contaminants from the renewable feedstock (Abstract; [0010]-[0011]), wherein the method comprises mixing water, a renewable feedstock, and a demulsifier to form a mixture solution, and then applying a voltage to the mixture solution ([0011], [0036]). Cantley further teaches wherein the electrostatic desalting step removes most of the water, e.g., all but about 0.7% of the water ([0046]), which falls within the instantly claimed range 1:0.0001 to 1:0.9, in order to obtain oil that is substantially free from water.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the ratio of moisture content in the oil feedstock to moisture content in the dehydrated oil phase comprise 1:0.0001 to 1:0.9 in the dehydration step in Adam, as taught by Cantley, in order to obtain oil that is substantially free from water.
Claims 4-5, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021204819 (to Adam et al.).
With respect to claim 4, Adam teaches wherein emulsions may be formed in the mixture solution and demulsifiers are added to promote the emulsion breaking; however, Adam fails to teach wherein in the operation S3, the waste plastic pyrolysis oil and the demulsifier are mixed in the first mixed solution at a volume ratio of 1:0.000001 to 1:0.001. However, the specific volume ratio is a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of demulsifier added to the mixture relative to the pyrolysis oil and arrive at the claimed oil-to-demulsifier volume ratio of from 1:000001 to 1:001 without undue experimentation, since it has been held that, where 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, absent critical results. MPEP 2144.05 II.
With respect to claim 5, since Adam teaches wherein the voltage is applied
through at least one pair of vertical electrodes (page 20, lines 30-34); then, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to apply the voltage as an alternating current or a combination of an alternating current and a direct current.
With respect to claim 10, Adam teaches that applying an electric field during the desalting process results in coalescence (page 20, lines 19-22). Furthermore, the instant specification discloses that residual moisture is removed in a coalescer ([0062]). Therefore, the coalescence taught in Adam reads on the recited limitations of "in the operation S3, the dehydrated first mixed solution is additionally dehydrated
by condensation of moisture”.
With respect to claim 11, Adam teaches that pyrolysis plastic oils comprise a nitrogen content of less than 2000 ppm wt. and a chlorine content of about 200 ppm wt. (page 37, lines 11-14), (i.e. a nitrogen-to-chlorine weight ratio of less than 10:1), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1:1 to 1:10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try different ratios for optimization purposes.
With respect to claim 12, Adam teaches wherein the sulfur source includes sulfur-containing oil/(organic sulfur compounds) (page 24, lines 31 – page 25, lines 1-12).
With respect to claim 13, Adam teaches wherein the sulfur-containing oil is included in an amount of 0.05 wt. % (page 24, lines 31 – page 25, lines 1-12), which falls within the instantly claimed range of less than 0.5 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the first mixed solution dehydrated in the operation S3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try adding sulfur-containing oil at 0.05 wt. % in order to optimize the hydrotreating process.
With respect to claim 14, Adam teaches wherein the sulfur source includes one or two or more sulfur-containing organic compounds (page 24, lines 31 – page 25, lines 1-12), which would read on and would encompass: “selected from a disulfide-based compound, a sulfide-based compound, a sulfonate-based compound, and a sulfate-based compound”.
With respect to claim 15, Adam teaches wherein the hydrotreating is
performed in the presence of a molybdenum-based hydrotreating catalyst (page 9, lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 16, Adam teaches wherein the molybdenum-based
hydrotreating catalyst is a catalyst in which a molybdenum-based
metal, or a metal including one or two or more selected from 5 nickel, cobalt, and tungsten, and a molybdenum-based metal are supported on a support (page 9, lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 17, Adam teaches wherein the hydrotreating is
performed under a pressure condition of 10 to 90 barg (page 9, line 9), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 50 bar to 150 bar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try pressures between 50 and 90 bar in order to optimize the hydrotreating process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al.
(WO 2021/204819 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Manalastas et al. (US 6,228,239 B1).
With respect to claim 7, Adam discloses all claim limitations as set forth above; however, Adam fails to teach removing a rag layer from the first mixed solution.
Manalastas teaches that it is known in the art that electrostatic demulsification of a mixture comprising oil, water, and a demulsifier generates an undesirable rag layer comprising a complex mixture of oil-in-water emulsion, water-in-oil emulsion, and solids and that the rag layer can be removed therefrom for storage or further processing (col. 1, lines 37-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to remove a rag layer from the first mixed solution in the method of Adam, as taught by Manalastas, in order to allow for further processing of the solution.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021204819 (to Adam et al.), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Van Wees et al. (US 2009/0000985 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Adam discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach wherein after the operation S4, subjecting a stream including the refined oil from which impurities are removed to gas-liquid separation and
then washing the gas-liquid separated stream with water.
Van Wees teaches a process for purifying a contaminated hydrocarbon, e.g., pyrolysis oil, via hydroprocessing (hydrotreatment), teaches subjecting a hydroprocessing effluent (Fig. 1, 62) to a gas-liquid separation to obtain a gas stream (84) comprising hydrogen and a liquid stream (82) comprising hydrocarbons ([0016]-[0018]). Van Wees further teaches purifying the gas stream to obtain a hydrogen rich vapor stream (102), which is recycled to the hydroprocessing step ([0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to modify Adam by separating the second hydrotreated oil into a gas stream comprising hydrogen gas and a liquid stream comprising hydrocarbons, as taught by Van Wees, because (i) the second hydrotreating step of Adam is conducted with hydrogen in an amount greater than the stoichiometric amount (see pg. 10, line 31, "the ratio H2/hydrocarbon ranges from 200 NL/L to 900 NL/L"), (ii) Van Wees teaches a method for separating a gas stream comprising hydrogen gas from a hydroprocessing effluent, which allows for recycle of the recovered hydrogen rich stream to the hydroprocessing ([0019]), and (iii) this merely involves application of a known separation method to recover and recycle a reactant, thereby improving the overall efficiency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 11-12 of copending Application No. 18/639,977 (hereinafter US’977). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to instant claim 1, US’977 claim 1 encompasses instant claim 1.
With respect to instant claim 2, US’977 claim 11 encompasses instant claim 2.
With respect to instant claim 3, US’977 claim 12 encompasses instant claim 3.
With respect to instant claim 4, US’977 claim 1 encompasses instant claim 4.
With respect to instant claim 20, US’977 claim 8 encompasses instant claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-13 of copending Application No. 18/632,288 (hereinafter US’288). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to instant claim 1, US’288 claim 1 encompasses instant claim 1.
With respect to instant claim 2, US’288 claim 11 encompasses instant claim 2.
With respect to instant claim 3, US’288 claim 12 encompasses instant claim 3.
With respect to instant claim 4, US’288 claim 13 encompasses instant claim 4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,844 (hereinafter USP’844) in view of WO2021204819 (to Adam et al.).
With respect to instant claim 1, USP’844 claim 1 encompasses instant claim 1, but fails to recite wherein the method comprises:
S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and
pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas;
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing
the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter filled with a neutralizing
agent.
Adam teaches a method for producing syngas containing hydrogen from waste plastics (page 25, lines 16-36), the method comprising:
S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and
pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas (page 25, lines 16-36);
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing
the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter/(adsorbent bed at 150-400oC) filled with a neutralizing
agent/(CaO) (page 22, lines 24-26) in order to produce hydrogen and plastic pyrolysis oil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the method of USP’844 comprise S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas;
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter filled with a neutralizing agent, as taught by Adam, in order to produce hydrogen and plastic pyrolysis oil.
With respect to instant claim 2, USP’844 claim 2 encompasses instant claim 2.
With respect to instant claim 3, USP’844 claim 3 encompasses instant claim 3.
With respect to instant claim 4, USP’844 claim 4 encompasses instant claim 4.
With respect to instant claim 5, USP’844 claim 5 encompasses instant claim 5.
With respect to instant claim 6, USP’844 claim 6 encompasses instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claim 7, USP’844 claim 7 encompasses instant claim 7.
With respect to instant claim 8, USP’844 claim 8 encompasses instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claim 9, USP’844 claim 9 encompasses instant claim 9.
With respect to instant claim 10, USP’844 claim 10 encompasses instant claim 10.
With respect to instant claim 11, USP’844 claim 11 encompasses instant claim 11.
With respect to instant claim 12, USP’844 claim 12 encompasses instant claim 12.
With respect to instant claim 13, USP’844 claim 13 encompasses instant claim 13.
With respect to instant claim 14, USP’844 claim 14 encompasses instant claim 14.
With respect to instant claim 15, USP’844 claim 15 encompasses instant claim 15.
With respect to instant claim 16, USP’844 claim 16 encompasses instant claim 16.
With respect to instant claim 17, USP’844 claim 17 encompasses instant claim 17.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,138 (hereinafter USP’138) in view of WO2021204819 (to Adam et al.).
With respect to instant claim 1, USP’138 claim 1 encompasses instant claim 1, but fails to recite wherein the method comprises:
S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and
pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas;
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing
the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter filled with a neutralizing
agent.
Adam teaches a method for producing syngas containing hydrogen from waste plastics (page 25, lines 16-36), the method comprising:
S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and
pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas (page 25, lines 16-36);
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing
the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter/(adsorbent bed at 150-400oC) filled with a neutralizing
agent/(CaO) (page 22, lines 24-26) in order to produce hydrogen and plastic pyrolysis oil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the method of USP’844 comprise S1 introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas;
S2 producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter filled with a neutralizing agent, as taught by Adam, in order to produce hydrogen and plastic pyrolysis oil.
With respect to instant claim 2, USP’138 claim 2 encompasses instant claim 2.
With respect to instant claim 3, USP’138 claim 3 encompasses instant claim 3.
With respect to instant claim 4, USP’138 claim 4 encompasses instant claim 4.
With respect to instant claim 5, USP’138 claim 5 encompasses instant claim 5.
With respect to instant claim 6, USP’138 claim 6 encompasses instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claim 7, USP’138 claim 7 encompasses instant claim 7.
With respect to instant claim 8, USP’138 claim 8 encompasses instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claim 9, USP’138 claim 9 encompasses instant claim 9.
With respect to instant claim 10, USP’138 claim 10 encompasses instant claim 10.
With respect to instant claim 11, USP’138 claim 11 encompasses instant claim 11.
With respect to instant claim 12, USP’138 claim 12 encompasses instant claim 12.
With respect to instant claim 13, USP’138 claim 13 encompasses instant claim 13.
With respect to instant claim 14, USP’138 claim 14 encompasses instant claim 14.
With respect to instant claim 15, USP’138 claim 15 encompasses instant claim 15.
With respect to instant claim 16, USP’138 claim 16 encompasses instant claim 16.
With respect to instant claim 17, USP’138 claim 17 encompasses instant claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 8/5/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights