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 Interpretation
Independent claims 12 and 19 as well as dependent claims 14 and 15 recite structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitations of receiving a process fluid which includes first and second components and of microbubble collapse releasing localized energy being to separate such first and second component. Dependent claims 14 and 15 contain additional such functional language concerning the process fluid being an emulsion with first and second components being oil and water.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device 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.”
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 12-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/832,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural limitations of the instant claims, are encompassed in the structural limitations of the claim of ‘838, as shown in the following side-by-side comparison of limitations of the instant claims compared to the claim of ‘838.
12. An apparatus comprising:
a cavitation chamber (‘838, claim 8, “cavitation chamber”);
an inlet disposed on the cavitation chamber to receive a process fluid pumped therethrough at an inlet pressure (‘838, claim 8, “inlet” and “pump” clauses) , wherein the process fluid includes a first component and a second component (functional language, see discussion of Claim interpretation above); and
a micro-bubble generator disposed within the cavitation chamber to create micro-bubbles, wherein the micro-bubble generator reduces a pressure of the process fluid below a fluid vapor pressure, and wherein the micro-bubbles collapse to release localized energy (‘838, claim 8, “microbubble generator” clause) to separate the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid (functional language, see discussion of Claim interpretation above);
13. The apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a pump to pump the process fluid through the inlet of the cavitation chamber (‘838, claim 8, “pump” clause).
14. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the process fluid is an emulsion (functional language, see discussion of Claim interpretation above).
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first component of the emulsion is water and the second component of the emulsion is oil (functional language, see discussion of Claim interpretation above).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 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.
In independent claim 1, in the “collapsing the micro-bubbles” clause, it is unclear from “…separates the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid” whether such separated fluid comprises the first component and/or the second component, or alternately comprising neither of the first or second component.
In claim 9, the lower extent of the recited range of “at least about 20 psi” is unclear.
In claim 10, the lower extent of the recited range of “at least about 60 psi” is unclear.
In claim 11, the lower extent of the recited range of “at least about 100 psi” is unclear.
In independent claim 12, in the “microbubble generator” clause, it is unclear from “…separate the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid” whether such separated fluid comprises the first component and/or the second component, or alternately comprising neither of the first or second component.
In claim 13, “the inlet of the cavitation chamber” is inconsistently worded with respect to “an inlet disposed on the cavitation chamber” in independent claim 12 from which claim 13 depends.
In claim 19, it is unclear whether or not “cavitation chamber to receive the process fluid via an inlet” is positively reciting such inlet, and whether such inlet is a structural feature comprised in or disposed on the cavitation chamber; and,
in the “microbubble generator” clause, it is unclear from “…separate the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid” whether such separated fluid comprises the first component and/or the second component, or alternately comprising neither of the first or second component.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These claims do not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 12 from which they depend, since no new structural components or features of the apparatus, or cavitation chamber or micro-bubble generator components thereof are recited. The particular fluids or other materials which are treated in the apparatus, do not constitute a positively recited structural feature.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device 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.”
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication CN1302829C (Publication ‘829 or ‘829) in combination with the accompanying Escapenet English translation of ‘829 in view of the Escapenet English translation of patent publication JP 2009208057 (Publication ‘057 or ‘057).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Document and the Escapenet English translation documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols with the paragraph numbers of the Escapenet documents referring to the paragraph immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” symbol.
For independent claim 1, Publication ‘829 discloses: An method comprising:
receiving a process fluid into a cavitation chamber 4 via an inlet (fig 1 and [0023] re line entering cavitation chamber 4 from pump 2, and see fig 1 and [0024 re inlet pipe 12 of cavitation device 4]), wherein the process fluid is pumped into the cavitation chamber at an inlet pressure (fig 1 and [0023 re pump 2 and pressure gauge 3] and [0024 re emulsified oil entering the cavitation device at a certain pressure and flow rate]), and wherein the process fluid includes a first component and a second component [0015 re emulsified oily wastewater containing 1st component of oil and 2nd component of wastewater];
reducing a pressure of the process fluid in the cavitation chamber as the process fluid moves away from the inlet , wherein the pressure is reduced from the inlet pressure to below a fluid vapor pressure to create micro-bubbles ([0024-0026 re making the pressure inside the vortex of the device or chamber lower than that of the emulsion continuous phase or the low-boiling-point components therein and generating a large number of cavitation bubbles as the pressure inside the eddy of the device is made lower than such fluid vapor pressure]); and
collapsing the bubbles to generate a localized energy release, wherein the localized energy release separates the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid ([0024-0026 re such cavitation bubbles collapsing rapidly, generating a localized energy release at the point of a tubular outlet end of the funnel-shaped inner cone 19 generating energy release in the form of instantaneous high temperature, high pressure and micro-shock waves] and [0014 re such process causing demulsification wherein the oil or water dispersed phase of the emulsion is precipitated from the other water or oil continuous phase, so that such oil and water phases are automatically and subsequently separated in a downstream oil-water separation unit]).
Claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom differ by requiring that the bubbles which are created and subsequently collapsed are micro-bubbles.
It is noted that ‘’829 teaches treatment of oily wastewater from any of a wide variety of sources of emulsified oil including in the food processing industry [0006, last paragraph]
However, JP ‘057 teaches treatment of wastewater, including food processing wastewater containing organic components including oil components [0002 and 0003, 0039]. JP ‘057 teaches treatment of such wastewater by a cavitation generator [0017-0018, 0037] , in which a spray nozzle is deployed in a cavitation chamber to inject the fluid being treated, in such a manner so as to form numerous microbubbles in the water, with the outcome of generating high energy that expansion and collapse of such bubbles decomposes organic matter including oil components in the wastewater [0071, 0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating oil and water emulsions to have practiced the method of publication ‘829, by utilizing a spray nozzle is deployed in a cavitation chamber to inject the fluid being treated, in such a manner so as to form numerous microbubbles in the water, as taught by JP ‘057, SO so as to generate high energy such that expansion and collapse of such bubbles decomposes organic matter including oil components in the wastewater, as well as separating the oil components from the water by phase separation.
For claim 2, ‘829 discloses the method further comprising pumping the process fluid into the cavitation chamber (fig 1 and [0023 and 0024 re oil or water pump 2 and pressurizing by pump 2]).
For claim 3, ‘829 discloses the method further comprising wherein the process fluid is an emulsion [0014 and 0025 re the process fluid being an emulsion having oil and water phases].
For claim 4, ‘829 discloses wherein the first component of the emulsion is water and the second component of the emulsion is oil [0014 and 0025 re the process fluid being an emulsion having oil and water phases].
For claim 5, ‘829 discloses wherein receiving the process fluid comprises receiving the process fluid from multiple sources [0005 re receiving a crude oil emulsion from extraction of crude oil from plural or multiple oil wells].
For claim 6, ‘829 discloses wherein the inlet pressure is maintained by controlling a flow rate into the cavitation chamber ([0025 re the emulsified oil being pressurized and flowing at a certain pressure and flow rate] and [0025 and 0026 re controlling of operating conditions inside the cavitation device]).
For claim 7, ‘829 discloses the method further comprising further comprising separating the separated fluid (fig 1 and [0014 and 0023 re separation of oil and water phases in an oil-water separation device 6, which are demulsified or separated in the cavitation device or chamber]).
For claim 8, ‘829 discloses the method further comprising further comprising dispensing the first component via a first outlet, and dispensing the second component via a second outlet (figure 1 illustrating separate outlets at different heights in oil-water separator 6, discussed in [0014 re the oil and water phases being automatically separated by utilizing differences in outlet height between the 2 phases in the unit]).
For claims 9-11, wherein the inlet pressure is at least about 20 psi, or at least about 60 psi, or at least about 100 psi, respectively [0029 re oil-water mixtures being passed through cavitation devices being at a pressure of 0.8 MPa or 116 psi, thus greater than 20, 60 or 100 psi].
For independent claim 12, Publication ‘829 discloses: An apparatus comprising:
a cavitation chamber (fig 1 and [0023] re line entering cavitation chamber 4 from pump 2;
an inlet disposed on the cavitation chamber to receive a process fluid pumped therethrough at an inlet pressure (fig 1 and [0023 re pump 2 and pressure gauge 3] and [0024 re emulsified oil entering the cavitation device at a certain pressure and flow rate and regarding inlet pipe 12]), and wherein the process fluid includes a first component and a second component [0015 re emulsified oily wastewater containing 1st component of oil and 2nd component of wastewater]; and
a micro-bubble generator disposed within the cavitation chamber to create micro-bubbles, wherein the micro-bubble generator reduces a pressure of the process fluid below a fluid vapor pressure ([0024-0026 re making the pressure inside the vortex of the device or chamber lower than that of the emulsion continuous phase or the low-boiling-point components therein and generating a large number of cavitation bubbles as the pressure inside the eddy of the device is made lower than such fluid vapor pressure]), and
wherein the micro-bubbles collapse to release localized energy to separate the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid ([0024-0026 re such cavitation bubbles collapsing rapidly, generating a localized energy release at the point of a tubular outlet end of the funnel-shaped inner cone 19 generating energy release in the form of instantaneous high temperature, high pressure and micro-shock waves] and [0014 re such process causing demulsification wherein the oil or water dispersed phase of the emulsion is precipitated from the other water or oil continuous phase, so that such oil and water phases are automatically and subsequently separated in a downstream oil-water separation unit]).
Claim 12, and claims dependent therefrom differ, by requiring that the bubbles which are created and subsequently collapsed are micro-bubbles.
It is noted that ‘’829 teaches treatment of oily wastewater from any of a wide variety of sources of emulsified oil including in the food processing industry [0006, last paragraph]
However, JP ‘057 teaches treatment of wastewater, including food processing wastewater containing organic components including oil components [0002 and 0003, 0039]. JP ‘057 teaches treatment of such wastewater by a cavitation generator [0017-0018, 0037] , in which a spray nozzle is deployed in a cavitation chamber to inject the fluid being treated, in such a manner so as to form numerous microbubbles in the water, with the outcome of generating high energy that expansion and collapse of such bubbles decomposes organic matter including oil components in the wastewater [0071, 0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating oil and water emulsions to have modified the apparatus of publication ‘829, by utilizing a spray nozzle is deployed in a cavitation chamber to inject the fluid being treated, in such a manner so as to form numerous microbubbles in the water, as taught by JP ‘057, SO so as to generate high energy such that expansion and collapse of such bubbles decomposes organic matter including oil components in the wastewater, as well as separating the oil components from the water by phase separation.
Optionally, independent claims 12 discussed above and 19 discussed below, as well as dependent claims 14 and 15, recite structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitations of receiving a process fluid which includes first and second components and of microbubble collapse releasing localized energy being to separate such first and second component. Dependent claims 14 and 15 contain additional such functional language concerning the process fluid being an emulsion with first and second components being oil and water.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device 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.”
For claim 13, Publication ‘829 discloses the apparatus as further comprising a pump to pump the process fluid through the inlet of the cavitation chamber (fig 1 and [0023 and 0024 re oil or water pump 2 and pressurizing by pump 2]).
For claim 14, ‘829 discloses the apparatus further comprising wherein the process fluid is an emulsion [0014 and 0025 re the process fluid being an emulsion having oil and water phases].
For claim 15, ‘829 discloses wherein the first component of the emulsion is water and the second component of the emulsion is oil [0014 and 0025 re the process fluid being an emulsion having oil and water phases].
For claim 16, Publication ‘829 discloses or suggests the apparatus as further comprising a flow controller to maintain the inlet pressure ([0025 re the emulsified oil being pressurized and flowing at a certain pressure and flow rate] and [0014, 0025 and 0026 re controlling of operating conditions inside the cavitation device]).
For claim 17, Publication ‘829 discloses the apparatus as further comprising a separator to separate the separated fluid (fig 1 and [0014 and 0023 re separation of oil and water phases in an oil-water separation device 6, which are demulsified or separated in the cavitation device or chamber]).
For claim 18, Publication ‘829 discloses the apparatus as further comprising a first outlet to dispense the first component, and a second outlet to dispense the second component (figure 1 illustrating separate outlets at different heights in oil-water separator 6, discussed in [0014 re the oil and water phases being automatically separated by utilizing differences in outlet height between the 2 phases in the unit]).
For independent claim 19, Publication ‘829 discloses: An apparatus comprising:
an oil well to produce material, wherein the material includes a mixture containing hydrocarbon [0005 re disclosing sources of material being treated including oil wells which form water-in-oil emulsions requiring treatment];
a pre-processor to move and process the material, wherein the pre process pre-processor is to produce process fluid, wherein the process fluid includes a first component and a second component ([0023 regarding a storage tank for storing emulsions to form process fluids to be treated by vortex cavitation , and optionally [0030-0031 re preparation of emulsified oily wastewater samples by mixing the emulsions with surfactants];
a cavitation chamber (fig 1 and [0023] re line entering cavitation chamber 4 from pump 2;
an inlet disposed on the cavitation chamber to receive a process fluid pumped therethrough at an inlet pressure (fig 1 and [0023 re pump 2 and pressure gauge 3] and [0024 re emulsified oil entering the cavitation device at a certain pressure and flow rate and regarding inlet pipe 12]), and wherein the process fluid includes a first component and a second component [0015 re emulsified oily wastewater containing 1st component of oil and 2nd component of wastewater]; and
a micro-bubble generator disposed within the cavitation chamber to create micro-bubbles, wherein the micro-bubble generator reduces a pressure of the process fluid below a fluid vapor pressure ([0024-0026 re making the pressure inside the vortex of the device or chamber lower than that of the emulsion continuous phase or the low-boiling-point components therein and generating a large number of cavitation bubbles as the pressure inside the eddy of the device is made lower than such fluid vapor pressure]), and
wherein the micro-bubbles collapse to release localized energy to separate the first component from the second component to form a separated fluid ([0024-0026 re such cavitation bubbles collapsing rapidly, generating a localized energy release at the point of a tubular outlet end of the funnel-shaped inner cone 19 generating energy release in the form of instantaneous high temperature, high pressure and micro-shock waves] and [0014 re such process causing demulsification wherein the oil or water dispersed phase of the emulsion is precipitated from the other water or oil continuous phase, so that such oil and water phases are automatically and subsequently separated in a downstream oil-water separation unit]).
Claim 19, and claim 20 dependent therefrom differ, by requiring that the bubbles which are created and subsequently collapsed are micro-bubbles.
It is noted that ‘’829 teaches treatment of oily wastewater from any of a wide variety of sources of emulsified oil including in the food processing industry [0006, last paragraph]
However, JP ‘057 teaches treatment of wastewater, including food processing wastewater containing organic components including oil components [0002 and 0003, 0039]. JP ‘057 teaches treatment of such wastewater by a cavitation generator [0017-0018, 0037] , in which a spray nozzle is deployed in a cavitation chamber to inject the fluid being treated, in such a manner so as to form numerous microbubbles in the water, with the outcome of generating high energy that expansion and collapse of such bubbles decomposes organic matter including oil components in the wastewater [0071, 0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of treating oil and water emulsions to have modified the apparatus of publication ‘829, by utilizing a spray nozzle is deployed in a cavitation chamber to inject the fluid being treated, in such a manner so as to form numerous microbubbles in the water, as taught by JP ‘057, so as to generate high energy such that expansion and collapse of such bubbles decomposes organic matter including oil components in the wastewater, as well as separating the oil components from the water by phase separation.
For claim 20, Publication ‘829 discloses the apparatus as further comprising a pump to pump the process fluid through the inlet of the cavitation chamber (fig 1 and [0023 and 0024 re oil or water pump 2 and pressurizing by pump 2]).
{Ben may want a bit more detail than this!} 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.
{Ben may want a bit more detail than the following!} Such sleeve dimensions 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 adapt the size of the sleeve of the apparatus and accompanying container to a particular 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 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
07/14/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights