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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-18, drawn to an arrangement for processing a lithium-containing mineral.
Group II, claim(s) 19-38, drawn to a method for processing a lithium-containing mineral.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the method of claim 19, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Hunwick (US 2017175228 A1, cited in IDS filed 04/10/2024).
Hunwick teaches a method for processing a lithium-containing mineral (Title, [0009-0013]), which comprises calcining the mineral in one or more calcination steps [0013, 0087-0090], at least one step utilizing the heat from a burning fuel [0015, 0057], thus resulting in a calcined material containing lithium [0096], as well as an off-gas (Fig. 2-3, [0123]). Hunwick teaches pulping the calcined material into a slurry together with a leaching reagent in an aqueous solution [0095-0097], leaching the formed slurry [0098], separating lithium-containing solids in a solid-liquid separation step 16 from a solution containing leaching reagent [0118], washing 24 the off-gas obtained from the calcination step(s) with a washing solution [0135-0136]. Hunwick teaches the liquid stream obtained in the solid-liquid separation step is further treated to produce LiOH solution (Fig. 2, [0122-127]), and at least a fraction of the LiOH is recirculated to the off-gas washing step 24 to be used as the washing solution [0066, 0132], where as the LiOH solution comprises Li from the Li-rich pregnant liquor produced by the leaching step, Hunwick teaches whereby at least a fraction of the liquid stream obtained in the solid-liquid separation step is recirculated to the off-gas washing step to be used as the washing solution.
During a telephone conversation with Joseph D. Kuborn on 06/30/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the liquid side” in line 13 should read “a liquid side”
Claim 10: “the solid side” in line 2 should read “a solid side”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “mineral” is herein interpreted as “comprises materials obtained from the processing of metal-containing ores” as defined at [0027] of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 10, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 16, 17, and 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "equipped with a feed of hydroxide reagent" in line 3. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the solid-liquid separation unit or the second leaching unit is equipped with the feed of hydroxide reagent, or if the hydroxide reagent is equipped on another component.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunwick (US 2017175228 A1, cited in IDS filed 04/10/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Hunwick teaches an arrangement for processing a lithium-containing mineral [0001, 0073], including a pretreatment stage 10, which may comprise calcination (i.e., a heating unit) (Fig. 2, [0089-0090]). Hunwick teaches the calcination involves burning fuel [0015], which would intrinsically include a fuel inlet as part of the heating unit. Hunwick teaches the heating unit calcines the mineral into a calcined material containing lithium [0089-0090], and further results in flue gases (i.e., off gases) exiting the heating unit (Fig. 2, [0123]). Hunwick teaches the arrangement further comprising a mixing and digesting stage 12 which forms a slurry or paste (i.e., forming an aqueous slurry from the calcined material) [0095-0096], thus the stage comprises a pulping unit. Hunwick teaches the pulping unit receives material from the calcining (Fig. 2, [0154-0155]), thus the pulping unit is connected to the heating unit.
Hunwick teaches leaching occurs in the mixing and digesting stage 12 [0098], and that the leaching may take place in one or more reactors [0016, 0065], for example leaching reactor 12 in Fig. 3. Therefore, any further reactors in the mixing and digesting stage of Hunwick would comprise a leaching unit for reacting the calcined material with a leaching reagent as claimed. Hunwick teaches a termination and separation stage 14, where the slurry or pulp from the leaching stage is separated into tailings and a Li-rich pregnant liquor (Fig. 2, [0110-0117]), where as 95% of Li is extracted from the lithium [0018], at least some Li remains in the tailings (i.e., lithium-containing solids) and Hunwick teaches a solid-liquid separation unit for separating lithium-containing solids from a solution containing leaching reagent. Separately, Hunwick teaches a lithium-nitrate production stage 16 where in an evaporation/crystallization substage, lithium is precipitated from solution as lithium nitrate crystals (i.e., lithium-containing solids) and water (part of the leaching solution) is evaporated and condensed [0118-0120], thus Hunwick teaches a solid-liquid separation unit for separating lithium-containing solids from a solution containing leaching reagent.
Hunwick teaches an off-gas handling unit 24 connected to the heating unit (Fig. 2, [0135-0136]), comprising a chamber through which lithium hydroxide solution is circulated and distributed via banks of sprays which reacts with carbon dioxide in the flue gases to produce lithium carbonate (i.e., at least one section of the off-gas handling unit being intended for washing the off-gas with a washing solution) [0135-0136]. Hunwick teaches process water from the lithium nitrate crystallizer (i.e., the solid-liquid separation unit) may be returned to leaching 12 of the lithium-containing material (Fig. 3-4), where the water comprises part of the lithium nitrate solution produced by the lithium nitrate production [0119-0120], and in turn part of the lithium hydroxide solution sent to the off-gas handling unit (Fig. 2, [0135-0136]) (i.e., whereby a recirculation line connects the liquid side of the solid-liquid separation unit to the off-gas handling unit).
Regarding claim 2, Hunwick teaches wherein the heating unit may be a rotary kiln [0090].
Regarding claim 3, Hunwick teaches wherein the heating unit includes one or more heat sources, including burning of fossil fuel (i.e., fuel-based heating) [0015].
Regarding claim 5, Hunwick teaches wherein the pulping unit 12/10 includes an inlet for mineral acid (i.e., an aqueous solution, said solution containing the leaching reagent) ([0095, 0148], Fig. 2-4), and an inlet for beta-spodumene (i.e., calcined material) ([0095, 0148], Fig. 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, Hunwick teaches wherein the pulping unit 12/10 includes an inlet for a solution ([0095, 0148], Fig. 2-4).
The Examiner notes that claim 6 discloses inlet for a bleed solution circulated from the off-gas handling unit. As claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, the inlet being for bleed solution comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. As Hunwick teaches a pulping unit to have an inlet for receiving liquid solutions, Hunwick would be capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 7, Hunwick teaches the one or more reactors in the mixing and digesting stage 12 (including the leaching unit) may be autoclaves [0099].
Regarding claim 8, Hunwick teaches wherein the leaching unit is connected to the pulping unit and includes an inlet for the aqueous slurry formed in the pulping unit
Regarding claim 11, Hunwick teaches wherein the mixing and digestion stage 12 (i.e., the leaching unit) may comprise multiple vessels [0016, 0099], and termination and separation stage 14 which may comprise multiple vessels [0021], where the later stages of the mixing and digestion stage comprise the one or more intermediate units connecting the solid-liquid separation unit and the leaching unit 12 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hunwick teaches bicarbonation (i.e., a carbonating unit) (Fig. 2, [0142]), third solid-liquid separation unit 26 (Fig. 2, [0137-0140]), and carbonation (i.e., a carbonate crystallization) (Fig. 2, [0141-0142]), wherein the lithium carbonate drying stage 28 comprises the solid-liquid separation unit for separating lithium-containing solids from process water (Fig. 2, [0141-0142]), where as the process water is returned to termination and separation stage 14 and HNO3 production 22 to be returned to digestion and leaching 12, the process water comprises a leaching reagent (i.e., a solid-liquid separation unit for separating from a solution containing leaching reagent).
Regarding claim 14, Hunwick teaches wherein at least a section of the off-gas handling unit is in the form of a wet gas scrubber 30 (Fig. 3-4, [0175-0179]) intended for washing the off-gas with lithium hydroxide solution (i.e., a washing solution) [0178].
Regarding claim 15, Hunwick teaches wherein the off-gas handling unit includes an inlet for off-gas (Fig. 2, [0135-136]) and an outlet for washed gas and evaporated water (Fig. 2, [0135-0136]).
Regarding claim 16, Hunwick teaches wherein at least a section of the off-gas handling unit is in the form of fabric filters (i.e., a solid-gas separator) (Fig. 3-4, [0147]). Hunwick does not teach the solid-gas separator to be a cyclone separator, however it is unclear if the solid-gas separator being a cyclone separator is part of the claimed invention as noted above, therefore Hunwick teaches claim 16 in its entirety as best can be examined.
Regarding claim 17, Hunwick teaches wherein at least a section of the off-gas handling unit is in the form of fabric filters 6 (i.e., a solid-gas separator) (Fig. 3-4, [0147]) which is positioned upstream from a washing section 30 of the off-gas handling unit (Fig. 3-4, [0175-0179]).
Regarding claim 18, Hunwick teaches wherein the solid-gas separator 6 includes an outlet for an underflow (Fig. 3-4), which is connected by a circulation line to the heating unit 1 (Fig. 3-4, [0147]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunwick as applied under 35 USC 102 to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhong et al. (CN 108193045 A, original document and machine translation provided herein).
Hunwick teaches all of claim 1 as noted above. Hunwick does not teach wherein the heating unit includes an electrical heat source.
Zhong teaches a mechanized roasting kiln for lithium ore and its roasting method (Title), where lithium ores such as spodumene are roasted in the kiln [0005], thus Zhong and Hunwick are analogous to the instant application as both are relate to producing lithium from lithium ore comprising calcining of lithium ore. Zhong teaches the heat source of the heating device of the kiln may be electricity or gas (i.e., wherein the heating unit includes an electrical heat source) [0017-0019, 0054].
It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (I). As in the instant case Hunwick only differs from claim 4 in that the instant claims use a combination of fuel heating and electric heating for heating the kiln, while Hunwick uses fuel heating, and Zhong uses gas or electric heating for the same purpose, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have combined the fuel and electric heating for heating the kiln.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunwick as applied under 35 USC 102 to claim 1 above, further in view of Yi et al. (CN 108165767 A, original document and machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 9, Hunwick teaches all of claim 1 as noted above. Hunwick does not teach wherein the leaching unit includes, or is connected to, one or more flash vessels.
Yi teaches a method for leaching spodumene based on microwave and pressure field (Title), to extract lithium [0002], where spodumene is ground [0013-0014], calcined in a kiln [0015-0016], and leached [0017-0018], thus Yi and Hunwick are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to recovering lithium from spodumene by calcining and leaching the spodumene. Yi teaches after leaching, flash evaporating the leachate to remove iron and separate solids and liquids [0019-0020], which would require one or more flash vessels (i.e., wherein the leaching unit includes, or is connected to, one or more flash vessels). Yi teaches the flash removes more than 70% of Fe3+ in the leachate [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a flash vessel as taught by Yi to the arrangement of Hunwick as doing so would remove any iron in the leachate, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the purity of the lithium leachate, improving the purity of the lithium products eventually produced.
Regarding claim 13, Hunwick teaches all of claim 1 as noted above. Hunwick teaches wherein the termination and separation stage 14 (i.e., the intermediate units) may one or more vessels for terminating leaching [0021], which may include simple covered tanks (i.e., atmospheric mixing reactors). Hunwick teaches air sparging equipment in the tanks (i.e., dispersing air into the slurry obtained from the leaching unit) [0024].
Hunwick does not teach wherein the leaching unit includes, or is connected to, one or more flash vessels.
Yi teaches a method for leaching spodumene based on microwave and pressure field (Title), to extract lithium [0002], where spodumene is ground [0013-0014], calcined in a kiln [0015-0016], and leached [0017-0018], thus Yi and Hunwick are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to recovering lithium from spodumene by calcining and leaching the spodumene. Yi teaches after leaching, flash evaporating the leachate to remove iron and separate solids and liquids [0019-0020], which would require one or more flash vessels (i.e., the leaching unit thus including, or being connected to, one or more flash vessels). Yi teaches the flash removes more than 70% of Fe3+ in the leachate [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a flash vessel as taught by Yi to the arrangement of Hunwick as doing so would remove any iron in the leachate, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to improve the purity of the lithium leachate, improving the purity of the lithium products eventually produced.
The Examiner notes that claim 13 discloses dispersing air into the slurry for causing air-induced evaporation of a fraction of water from the slurry. As claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, causing air-induced evaporation of a fraction of water from the slurry comprises an intended use, and an apparatus in the prior art need only be capable of performing the intended use to read upon the claim. As Hunwick teaches dispensing air into the slurry, Hunwick in view of Yi teaches claim 13 in its entirety. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunwick as applied under 35 USC 102 to claim 1 above, further in view of Tiihonen et al. (WO 2019220003 A1, original English language document provided herein).
Regarding claim 10, Hunwick teaches wherein the leaching unit is connected to the solid-liquid separation unit (Fig. 2).
Hunwick does not teach wherein the solid side is connected to a second leaching unit, equipped with a feed of hydroxide reagent, a second solid-liquid separation unit, optionally a purification unit, or a lithium hydroxide crystallization unit.
Tiihonen teaches a method for recovering lithium hydroxide (title), where a raw material containing Li is processed to recover lithium hydroxide (Abstract), by pulping and leaching (Abstract, pg. 2 lines 6-10) thus Tiihonen and Hunwick are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to recovering lithium from Li-containing raw materials by pulping and leaching, where the lithium may be recovered as lithium hydroxide. Tiihonen teaches after leaching, the first leaching solution is separated from solids, and the solids are carried to a second leaching step (pg. 2 lines 28-30), which would require a solid side of a solid-liquid separator to be connected to a second leaching unit. Tiihonen teaches the second leaching step is equipped with a feed of hydroxide reagent (pg. 2 lines 14-16), and a second solid-liquid separation unit (pg. 2 lines 14-16) and a lithium hydroxide crystallization unit (pg. 2 lines 17-18). Tiihonen teaches the solution containing lithium form the second leaching unit may be purified by suitable purifying methods (pg. 7 lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a second leaching unit with a feed of hydroxide reagent as taught by Tiihonen to treat the tailing stream of the termination and separation unit of Hunwick, as doing so would recover additional lithium from the tailings of the termination and separation unit that are otherwise disposed of by Hunwick, producing additional lithium hydroxide, which is an objective of Hunwick.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights