DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on May 15, 2024, and any subsequent filings.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings contain gray scale (see MPEP 608.02.VII.B and lines that do are not dark and well defined as required by 37 CFR 1.84. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The solids harvesting loop as recited in Claim 11;
The media filter recited in Claim 12;
The filtration sock and paper filter recited in Claim 13; and,
The transducer system that measures pressure as recited in Claim 18.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “membrane module is configured for one of crossflow or dead-end filtration” in Claim 5 and “reactor is configured for precipitation of magnesium ammonium phosphate (MAP)” in Claim 19.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the specification recites a membrane filter made of ceramic materials (Spec., Paragraphs 6, 121 (“Pr”)), the specification provides no individual ceramic materials that have been used to make the membrane filter as claimed.
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 2, 4, 5, and 11-19 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.
Claim 2 recites a “completely stirred reactor (CSTR)” which is not a standard term in the chemical engineering arts and not defined by the claims or specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR).
Claim 4 recites partially submerging the membrane module in the reaction chamber yet how the membrane module is submerged into a space defined by a solid object without the presence of a liquid is unclear.
Claim 5 recites the membrane module being configured to perform certain functions yet the claim and specification provide no structure that performs those functions. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the membrane module performing filtration.
Claim 11 recites a solids harvesting loop yet nothing in the claim, specification, or drawings provides any specificity as to what is meant by this limitation. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to mean any stream the removes solids and returns liquid to the reactor.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "media filter,” "filtration sock,” and “paper filter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites a pump system yet nothing in the claim, specification, or drawings identifies what constitutes the pump system and location of that system. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring a pump anywhere in the process.
Claim 17 recites a transducer system yet nothing in the claim, specification, or drawings identifies what constitutes the transducer system. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any measuring device.
Claim 18 recites the transducer system measuring pressures yet given the transducer system has no identifiable structure how that system can measure pressures is not clear.
Claim 19 recites the reactor being configured to precipitate magnesium ammonium phosphate yet nothing in the claim, specification, or drawings provides any structure that is directed towards precipitating this specific compound. For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as requiring a reactor.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11, 15-19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datang Chinese Publication No. CN105540967A (“Datang”) in view of Gavrel, U.S. Publication No. 2002/0020631 (“Gavrel”). A machine translation of the specification and claims accompanies this detailed action and the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the prior art and the translated specification unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device and a method.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11, 15-19, and 26, Datang discloses a solid precipitation reactor (Claim 10) comprising a reaction chamber (Claims 3, 9 (note coagulation precipitation solid-liquid separation unit), Pr39) configured to receive feedwater (Claim 9 (note solid-liquid separation unit receives the effluent from the pretreatment unit)) and to allow particulates to at least partially precipitate from the feedwater to form an effluent (Claims 3, 9); and a membrane module having at least one membrane filter (Claim 4 (note nanofiltration membrane), Pr40) configured to receive effluent from the reaction chamber (Pr21) and to filter suspended particulates from the effluent to produce a permeate and a concentrate (Pr21,32),
Datang does not disclose wherein the concentrate is reintroduced to the reaction chamber to allow additional particulates to precipitate.
Gavrel also relates to a solid precipitation reactor and discloses wherein the concentrate is reintroduced to the reaction chamber to allow additional particulates to precipitate (Fig. 2 (note recirculation line 168), Pr32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the solid precipitation reactor disclosed by Datang with the recirculation disclosed by Gavrel because, according to Gravel, recirculation can provide the quality required (Pr37) and this will allow further processing and concentration of the minerals in the sludge, leading to greater mineral recovery.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: wherein the reaction chamber comprises a completely stirred reactor (CSTR) or a fluidized bed reactor (FBR) (Datang, Pr38 (disclosing use of fluidized bed reactors)). Claim 3: wherein the at least one membrane filter comprises at least one ultrafiltration membrane filter (Datang, Claim 3, Pr39). Claim 7: wherein the at least one membrane filter is made of a polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethersulfone (Datang, Pr21,40), polyacrylonitrile, or ceramic material. Claim 10: an agitator system configured to mix the feedwater within the reaction chamber (Gavrel, Pr8 (disclosing use of agitator)). Claim 11: a solids harvesting loop wherein suspended particulates in the reactor are removed and a liquid effluent is returned to the reactor (Gavrel, Fig. 2; see also 112(b) analysis above). Claim 15: wherein the reaction chamber operates in at least one of a continuous mode or a batch mode (note manner of operating a device does not distinguish over the prior art; see Claim 11 analysis). Claim 16: a pump system configured to control a flow of feedwater through the reaction chamber and membrane module (Gavrel, Fig. 2, items 165, 191, Pr31,32). Claim 17: a transducer system (Gavrel, Pr40 (note controlling pressure requires measuring pressure); see also 112(b) analysis above). Claim 18: wherein the transducer system measures at least one of a pressure of the feedwater, a pressure of the permeate, or a pressure of the concentrate (Gavrel, Pr40 (note controlling pressure requires measuring pressure and this can occur anywhere within the system)). Claim 19: wherein the reactor is configured for precipitation of magnesium ammonium phosphate (MAP) (Datang, Claims 3, 9 (note coagulation precipitation solid-liquid separation unit), Pr39; see also 112(b) analysis above). Claim 26: a method for treating wastewater, comprising injecting wastewater comprising ammonium ions (NH4+) and phosphate ions (PO43-) into the solid precipitation reactor of Claim 1 (Datang, Pr19,110; see also Claim 1 analysis above); contacting the injected wastewater in the reactor with magnesium ions (Mg2+) and optionally additional phosphate ions (PO43-), thereby producing a mixture comprising a solid (Datang, Pr27); and filtering the mixture thereby isolating the solid and producing precipitation-treated water (Datang, Pr27).
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datang Chinese Publication No. CN105540967A (“Datang”) in view of Gavrel, U.S. Publication No. 2002/0020631 (“Gavrel”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Venosa, U.S. Publication No. 2003/0146152 (“Venosa”). A machine translation of the specification and claims accompanies this detailed action and the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the prior art and the translated specification unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9, the combination of Datang and Gavrel discloses the solid precipitation reactor of Claim 1 except wherein the membrane module is at least partially submerged into the reaction chamber.
Venosa also relates to a reactor and a membrane and discloses wherein the membrane module is at least partially submerged into the reaction chamber (Pr16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the solid precipitation reactor disclosed by Datang and Gavrel with the submerged membrane disclosed by Venosa because, according to Venosa, this allows for effective retention and concentration of solids (Pr13) and can either be located within the reactor or external to the reactor (Pr27).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 5: wherein the membrane module is configured for one of crossflow or dead-end filtration (Venosa, Fig. 1, Pr7,13,29). Claim 8: wherein the at least one membrane filter comprises tubular, flat sheet, or hollow fiber (Fig. 1 (note flat vertical membrane sheets)). Claim 9: wherein the at least one membrane filter has a pore size between 0.005 micrometers and 0.2 micrometers (Venosa, Pr13,16).
Claims 6, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datang Chinese Publication No. CN105540967A (“Datang”) in view of Gavrel, U.S. Publication No. 2002/0020631 (“Gavrel”) as applied to Claim 1 above (for Claims 6 and 20) and Claim 11 (for Claims 12 and 14), and further in view of Brunsell, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0153473 (“Brunsell”). A machine translation of the specification and claims accompanies this detailed action and the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the prior art and the translated specification unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 6, 12, 14, and 20, the combination of Datang and Gavrel discloses the solid precipitation reactor of Claims 1 and 11 except wherein the at least one membrane filter is a crossflow tubular ultrafiltration membrane.
Brunsell also relates to membrane filter and discloses wherein the at least one membrane filter is a crossflow tubular ultrafiltration membrane (Pr40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the solid precipitation reactor disclosed by Datang and Gavrel with the crossflow tubular ultrafiltration membrane disclosed by Brunsell because, according to Brunsell, the crossflow tubular ultrafiltration membrane can remove nearly 100% of solids (Pr40).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 12: wherein the solids harvesting loop comprises a media filter (Brunsell, Pr40). Claim 14: wherein the media filter, filtration sock, or paper filter have pore sizes between 1 micrometer to 500 micrometers (Brunsell, Pr40; see also MPEP 2144.05 regarding obviousness of ranges). Claim 20: a system for wastewater treatment, the system comprising: a digesting unit configured to received wastewater and to pre-treat the wastewater to produce feedwater (Datang, Claims 1, 2 (note biochemical pretreatment interpreted as digesting unit)); the solid precipitation reactor of Claim 1 that receives feedwater from the digesting unit to produce a permeate (see Claim 1 analysis); and an ion exchange unit (Brunsell, Fig., item 42) that receives the permeate (Brunsell, Fig., items 31, 34, 40) from the reaction chamber of the solid precipitation reactor (Brunsell, Fig. item 20) to produce treated permeate, optionally wherein the ion exchange unit comprises a zeolite cation exchanger (Brunsell, Pr47).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datang Chinese Publication No. CN105540967A (“Datang”) in view of Gavrel, U.S. Publication No. 2002/0020631 (“Gavrel”) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Aboud, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0352197 (“Aboud”). A machine translation of the specification and claims accompanies this detailed action and the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the prior art and the translated specification unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a device.
The combination of Datang and Gavrel discloses the solid precipitation reactor of Claim 11 except wherein the solids harvesting loop comprises a filtration sock or a paper filter.
Aboud also relates to a water treatment system and discloses wherein the solids harvesting loop comprises a filtration sock or a paper filter (Fig. 1, item 6, Pr26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the solid precipitation reactor disclosed by Datang and Gavrel with the bag filters disclosed by Aboud because, according to Aboud, the bag filter can remove particles larger than 1 micron (Pr26).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datang Chinese Publication No. CN105540967A (“Datang”) in view of Gavrel, U.S. Publication No. 2002/0020631 (“Gavrel”) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Williams, “Ion Exchange-Precipitation for Nutrient Recovery from Dilute Wastewater,” e-Publications@Marquette, 2015 (“Williams”). A machine translation of the specification and claims accompanies this detailed action and the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the prior art and the translated specification unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
The combination of Datang and Gavrel discloses introducing the waste solution to the solid precipitation reactor of Claim 1 to generate a solid and a permeate except method of regenerating a zeolite cation exchanger having bound ammonium ions, comprising contacting the zeolite cation exchanger having bound ammonium ions with a regenerating solution to produce a regenerated zeolite cation exchanger and a zeolite waste solution comprising the ammonium ions.
Williams also relates to a method of water treatment and discloses a method of regenerating a zeolite cation exchanger having bound ammonium ions (Abstract), comprising contacting the zeolite cation exchanger having bound ammonium ions with a regenerating solution to produce a regenerated zeolite cation exchanger and a zeolite waste solution comprising the ammonium ions (Page (“Pg”) 9 / Pr2, Pg10/Pr3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed by the combination of Datang and Gavrel with the zeolite ion exchanger disclosed by Williams because, according to Williams, the ion exchanger removes nearly 97% of ammonium nitrogen (Pg2/Pr1) which can then be monetized (Abstract).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datang Chinese Publication No. CN105540967A (“Datang”) in view of Brunsell, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0153473 (“Brunsell”), and Williams, “Ion Exchange-Precipitation for Nutrient Recovery from Dilute Wastewater,” e-Publications@Marquette, 2015 (“Williams”). A machine translation of the specification and claims accompanies this detailed action and the claims of the instant application are mapped to the claims of the prior art and the translated specification unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Datang discloses a system for wastewater treatment, the system comprising a digesting unit configured to received wastewater and to pre-treat the wastewater to produce feedwater (Claims 1, 2 (note biochemical pretreatment interpreted as digesting unit)).
Datang does not disclose
an ion exchange unit comprising a zeolite cation exchanger, the ion exchange unit being configured to receive feedwater from the digesting unit to produce zeolite-treated water, whereby ammonium ions in the feedwater bind to the zeolite cation exchanger.
Brunsell also relates to membrane filter and discloses an ion exchange unit comprising a zeolite cation exchanger, the ion exchange unit being configured to receive feedwater from the digesting unit to produce zeolite-treated water (Fig., item 42, Pr42,47).
Williams also relates to a method of water treatment and discloses whereby ammonium ions in the feedwater bind to the zeolite cation exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the solid precipitation reactor disclosed by Datang and Gavrel with the crossflow tubular ultrafiltration membrane disclosed by Brunsell because, according to Brunsell, ion exchange allows for removal of precipitates (Pr34). It would have also been obvious to combine the device disclosed by Datang and Brunsell with the zeolite cation exchanger binding ammonium ions because, according to Williams, zeolite ion exchangers are known to bind ammonium ions (Pg10/Pr3) a known contaminant in wastewaters (Abstract, Pg9/Pr2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights