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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claim 21 is pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/30/2024 and has been considered by the examiner with the exception of JP 2008/231529 A.
The information disclosure statement filed 05/30/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. No copy of foreign reference JP 2008/231529 A has been included. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are labelled with a Chinese character rather than the English word “figure” or any of its equivalents such as “FIG.”. 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.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the limitation “for blast furnace low-carbon smelting” of claim 21 is an intended use limitation that does not impart any structural limitations to the claimed method. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP §2111.02 (Il). In this case, the body of the claim recites a “blast furnace” and “blast furnace tuyeres”, but does not limit the claimed method to “low-carbon smelting”.
Claim 21 recites the limitations: (i) “to form tuyere raceways inside a blast furnace”, (ii) “not to further participate in a combustion reaction”, (iii) “by utilizing the temperature in the vicinity of the tuyere raceways to form a hydrocarbon thermal cracking heat absorption area, so as to reduce the temperature of the tuyere raceways and the vicinity of a blast furnace hearth”, and (iv) “and thus gas products generated by the thermal cracking reaction being carbon and hydrogen; the gas products generated by the thermal cracking reaction increasing the blast furnace gas volume, and thus redundant heat of the tuyere raceways being carried to the upper part of the blast furnace”. These limitations are interpreted as the intended results of the claimed: (a) “introducing rich oxygen or pure oxygen into blast furnace tuyeres”, (b) “enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects not to pass through the tuyere raceways”, (c) “enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects to undergo a thermal cracking reaction”, and (d) “the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects comprising methane, and one or more of natural gas, coke oven gas, and liquefied petroleum gas” respectively. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” See MPEP 2111.04. In this case, prior art reading on the claimed (a), (b), (c), and (d) will be interpreted as necessarily achieving the results of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv).
Regarding the “temperature-adjusting injection openings” of claim 21, the term “temperature-adjusting injection” is interpreted as the name of the claimed “injections” rather than as imparting any particular structure to the claimed openings. Any opening that can inject will be interpreted as reading on the claimed “temperature-adjusting injection openings”.
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.
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.
Claim 21 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(s) 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.
Claim 21 recites a series of passive method steps, including:
“enabling a plurality of temperature-adjusting injection openings to be evenly formed in the circumferential direction of the blast furnace”,
“enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to be reserved just above a middle position between the two adjacent blast furnace tuyeres”,
“enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to inject a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object to the blast furnace”,
“enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects not to pass through the tuyere raceways and not to further participate in a combustion reaction”,
“enabling a plurality of furnace stack injection openings to be formed in the middle of the blast furnace”.
The instant specification recites “a plurality of temperature-adjusting injection openings are evenly formed in the circumferential direction of a blast furnace” ([0005]), but does not use the term “enabling” when referring to this limitation nor does it refer to this limitation as a method. Similarly, the instant specification provides support for the remaining limitations with the exception of the term “enabling”. Specifically, the instant specification recites “each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings is reserved just above a middle position between the two adjacent blast furnace tuyeres” ([0009]), “the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects are ejected through the temperature-adjusting injection openings” ([0015]), “the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects 6 do not pass through the tuyere raceways 4” ([0029]), and “a plurality of furnace stack injection openings are formed in the middle position of the blast furnace” ([0012]).
Regarding the term “enabling”, the instant specification recites “makes the nitrogen content in the top gas low and enables CO2 to be easily separated out” ([0003], emphasis added), the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects are enabled to undergo a thermal cracking ([0007], emphasis added), and furnace stack injection openings 10 formed in a furnace stack so as to enable same to participate in the reduction reaction ([0037], emphasis added).
The written description does not provide support for the “enabling” limitations listed above.
In contrast, the written description provides support for “enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects to undergo a thermal cracking reaction by utilizing the temperature in the vicinity of the tuyere raceways to form a hydrocarbon thermal cracking heat absorption area, so as to reduce the temperature of the tuyere raceways and the vicinity of a blast furnace hearth” in the instant specification in “the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects are enabled to undergo a thermal cracking” ([0007], emphasis added).
Claim 21 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 21 is presented as a method claim. Claim 21 recites a step of introducing rich oxygen or pure oxygen into blast furnace tuyeres, which is an active, repeatable and tangible step. The Examiner notes that the rest of the claim is recited as a series of passive steps starting with the term “enabling”. The method steps written in a passive voice include the following:
“enabling a plurality of temperature-adjusting injection openings to be evenly formed in the circumferential direction of the blast furnace”,
“enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to be reserved just above a middle position between the two adjacent blast furnace tuyeres”,
“enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to inject a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object to the blast furnace”,
“enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects not to pass through the tuyere raceways and not to further participate in a combustion reaction”,
“enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects to undergo a thermal cracking reaction by utilizing the temperature in the vicinity of the tuyere raceways to form a hydrocarbon thermal cracking heat absorption area, so as to reduce the temperature of the tuyere raceways and the vicinity of a blast furnace hearth”, and
“enabling a plurality of furnace stack injection openings to be formed in the middle of the blast furnace”.
As such, only one active, positive method step is recited. Accordingly, the scope of protection sought is unclear for the remainder of the claim reciting passive method steps. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to recite active, repeatable, and tangible method steps.
Further regarding claim 21, the claim recites a series of passive steps starting with the term “enabling” (see 112(b) rejection above for a list of relevant limitations). The use of the term “enabling” renders the claim indefinite. Merriam-Webster defines “enabling” as “to make possible, practical, or easy”. It is unclear whether the claimed method requires the limitations following the term “enabling” or if the limitations, as claimed, merely require the possibility of performing the limitation following the term “enabling”. For example, in the claimed method step of “enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to inject a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object to the blast furnace”, it is unclear whether the claimed enabling step merely requires the possibility of injecting a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object or if the method must inject a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “enabling a plurality of temperature-adjusting injection openings to be evenly formed in the circumferential direction of the blast furnace”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether enabling the openings to be evenly formed refers to the structural configuration of the openings in the blast furnace (i.e. the openings have an “even” aperture), to a location of the openings (i.e. the openings are uniformly distributed along the circumference of the furnace), to a function of the openings (i.e. the openings are “evenly formed”), or a different interpretation.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the two adjacent blast furnace tuyeres" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites “blast furnace tuyeres” in line 3, but does not recite any limitations regarding the configuration or location of the claimed tuyeres, such as that there are two tuyeres and the two tuyeres are adjacent to each other.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “within a height range where a soft melting dripping zone is located”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear where a “height range” location “where a soft melting dripping zone” would be. The instant specification and drawings do not provide guidance regarding the claimed “height range” nor “soft melting dripping zone” locations. It is therefore unclear where the claimed temperature-adjusting injection openings are located from the instant claim as currently written.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “furnace stack injection openings are configured to re-inject the top gas rich in CO and H2 into the blast furnace after preheating”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claimed method requires the furnace stack injection openings to re-inject the top gas into the blast furnace or if it merely requires that the openings be capable of re-injecting top gas.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001/240906 A of Matsuzaki (with reference to its English machine translation) in view of CN 101448962 A of Choi (as cited in IDS mailed 05/30/2026 and with reference to its English machine translation) and further in view of US 2016/0326604 A1 of Inada.
As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in this Office action, Matsuzaki teaches an operating method of a blast furnace in which injecting of reducing gas from an ordinary tuyere arranged in the blast furnace or from a separately arranged tuyere together with the above tuyere is made (Abstract, reads on claimed injection regulation and control method for blast furnace low carbon smelting).
Matsuzaki teaches a separately provided reducing gas supply tuyere 25 normally installed near the blast furnace tuyere 12 ([0013], [0016], [0026], [0030], Fig. 4, reducing gas supply tuyere reads on claimed temperature-adjusting openings). Matsuzaki teaches by installing separate tuyeres for supplying reducing gas in addition to the normal tuyeres of the blast furnace, the flexibility of reducing gas supply is greatly increased, and significant benefits can be expected in blast furnace operation ([0032], separate tuyeres reads on claimed plurality of temperature-adjusting injection openings).
While Matsuzaki does not explicitly disclose the configuration of the tuyeres, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to evenly distribute multiple tuyeres along the furnace wall. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art understands multiple tuyeres are typically in a blast furnace and are evenly distributed along the furnace wall to ensure uniform distribution of the material supplied by the tuyeres.
As seen in Fig. 4, the reducing gas supply tuyere 25 is installed above the normal blast furnace tuyere 12. Matsuzaki teaches oxygen is supplied to generate reducing gas, and this reducing gas is supplied into the blast furnace via a lance positioned in front of the blowpipe of the blast furnace tuyere, and/or via a separately provided reducing gas supply tuyere (claim 1, reads on claimed introducing rich oxygen or pure oxygen into blast furnace tuyeres to form tuyere raceways inside a blast furnace).
Matsuzaki therefore reads on the limitation an injection regulation and control method for blast furnace low-carbon smelting, comprising the steps of: introducing rich oxygen or pure oxygen into blast furnace tuyeres to form tuyere raceways inside a blast furnace of claim 21, enabling a plurality of temperature-adjusting injection openings to be evenly formed in the circumferential direction of the blast furnace, and enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to be reserved just above a middle position between the two adjacent blast furnace tuyeres, and the temperature-adjusting injection openings are located, in an axial direction, within a height range where a soft melting dripping zone is located, and are not lower than the positions where the blast furnace tuyeres are located of claim 21.
However, Matsuzaki does not explicitly disclose enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to inject a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object to the blast furnace, and enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects not to pass through the tuyere raceways and not to further participate in a combustion reaction, instead, enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects to undergo a thermal cracking reaction by utilizing the temperature in the vicinity of the tuyere raceways to form a hydrocarbon thermal cracking heat absorption area, so as to reduce the temperature of the tuyere raceways and the vicinity of a blast furnace hearth; the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects comprising methane, and one or more of natural gas, coke oven gas, and liquefied petroleum gas, and thus gas products generated by the thermal cracking reaction being carbon and hydrogen; the gas products generated by the thermal cracking reaction increasing the blast furnace gas volume, and thus redundant heat of the tuyere raceways being carried to the upper part of the blast furnace; and enabling a plurality of furnace stack injection openings to be formed in the middle of the blast furnace, wherein top gas is separated out by a furnace top CO2 separation system, and the furnace stack injection openings are configured to re-inject the top gas rich in CO and H2 into the blast furnace after preheating of claim 21.
Regarding the hydrocarbon component-containing injection object of claim 21, Matsuzaki teaches a jet 15 is formed by the gas in front of the tuyer 12, and furthermore, a region where the coke filled in the furnace 14 burns while swirling, i.e., a raceway 16, is formed ([0026], Fig. 2, raceway reads on claimed tuyere raceway).
Choi teaches a method for producing molten iron by injecting a hydrocarbon-containing gas and an apparatus for producing molten iron using this method (Abstract, reads on claimed injection regulation and control method for blast furnace low-carbon smelting since both apparatuses use a furnace to produce molten iron). Choi teaches a molten gasification furnace 60 (Fig. 1, [0061], reads on claimed blast furnace). Choi and Matsuzaki are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with methods of injecting reducing gases from a tuyere to obtain molten iron and similarly comprise a furnace, tuyeres, and injecting reducing gases.
Choi teaches a method for producing molten iron by injecting hydrocarbon-containing gas, which not only increases the amount of reducing gas but also improves the quality of the reducing gas required to melt reduced iron to produce molten iron ([0012], [0002]). Choi teaches injecting oxygen-containing gas through a tuyere into the coal-filled bed to form a vortex zone ([0015], [0019], reads on claimed introducing oxygen into tuyeres to form tuyere raceways inside a blast furnace). Choi teaches oxygen-containing gas is pure oxygen at room temperature ([0062], pure oxygen reads on claimed rich oxygen or pure oxygen).
Choi teaches oxygen-containing gas is injected into the molten gasification furnace through the penetration opening 601 of the tuyeres 80 ([0073], tuyeres read on claimed temperature-adjusting injection openings). Choi teaches hydrocarbon-containing gas is injected into the melting gasification furnace through the nozzle 603 of the tuyeres 80 ([0073], tuyeres read on claimed temperature-adjusting injection openings; hydrocarbon-containing gas reads on claimed hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects).
Choi teaches directly injecting hydrocarbon-containing gas into the vortex zone after its formation to further generate reducing gas ([0015], hydrocarbon-containing gas reads on claimed hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects). Choi teaches multiple tuyeres 80 are installed on the outer wall of the molten gasification furnace 60, through which oxygen-containing gas and hydrocarbon-containing gas are injected ([0062], tuyeres read on claimed temperature-adjusting injection openings)
Choi teaches hydrocarbon-containing gases can be any gas containing hydrocarbon, for example, liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), blast furnace gas (BFG), and coke oven gas (COG) ([0062]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Matsuzaki with the hydrocarbon and oxygen injecting of Choi to increase the amount of reducing gas and improve the quality of the reducing gas required to melt reduced iron to produce molten iron, as taught by Choi.
Since Matsuzaki teaches using a reduced gas supply tuyere separate to the blast furnace tuyere, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the hydrocarbon injection of modified Matsuzaki will not pass through the tuyere raceway of the blast furnace tuyere since the reduced gas supply tuyere 25 is above the blast furnace tuyere 12 (see Fig. 4 of Matsuzaki and Fig. 2 showing tuyere raceway 16).
Modified Matsuzaki therefore reads on the limitations enabling each of the temperature-adjusting injection openings to inject a hydrocarbon component-containing injection object to the blast furnace of claim 21, enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects not to pass through the tuyere raceways and not to further participate in a combustion reaction, instead, enabling the injected hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects to undergo a thermal cracking reaction by utilizing the temperature in the vicinity of the tuyere raceways to form a hydrocarbon thermal cracking heat absorption area, so as to reduce the temperature of the tuyere raceways and the vicinity of a blast furnace hearth of claim 21, the hydrocarbon component-containing injection objects comprising methane, and one or more of natural gas, coke oven gas, and liquefied petroleum gas of claim 21, and thus gas products generated by the thermal cracking reaction being carbon and hydrogen; the gas products generated by the thermal cracking reaction increasing the blast furnace gas volume, and thus redundant heat of the tuyere raceways being carried to the upper part of the blast furnace of claim 21.
Regarding the furnace stack injection openings of claim 21, Matsuzaki and Choi do not explicitly disclose furnace stack injection openings configured to re-inject top gas.
Inada teaches a method for operation of a blast furnace able to greatly reduce the CO2 emission and enabling stable production of pig iron over a long period of time in a commercial blast furnace (Abstract). Inada and Matsuzaki are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with methods of operating a blast furnace and both comprise a blast furnace, tuyeres, and injecting oxygen.
Inada teaches adding the following to existing blast furnace operation: (A) blowing in gas containing at least one of hydrogen and hydrocarbon from a usual tuyere, (B) heating top gas from which CO2 and other oxide components and steam (H2O) have been removed and blowing it from a shaft tuyere, and (C) blowing top gas from the usual tuyere without heating the top gas and increasing the oxygen enrichment of blast from the usual tuyere ([0032]-[0037], (B) reads on the claimed furnace top CO2 separation system). Inada teaches top gas wherein a ratio of gas having a reduction ability is high is produced by removing the oxide components and steam from the top gas, and the produced top gas is reutilized and by heating the produced top gas to a suitable temperature and again blowing it from a shaft tuyere into the inside of the blast furnace (below, referred to as “top gas recycling”), it is possible to improve the rate of utilization of the furnace reducing gas ([0036], produced top gas is reutilized by blowing it again from a shaft tuyere reads on claimed configured to re-inject the top gas rich in CO and H2 into the blast furnace after preheating). Inada teaches the injection from the separation apparatus is in the middle of the blast furnace (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Matsuzaki to add the top gas recycling of Inada able to greatly reduce the CO2 emission and enabling stable production of pig iron over a long period of time in a commercial blast furnace, as taught by Inada.
Modified Matsuzaki therefore reads on the limitation enabling a plurality of furnace stack injection openings to be formed in the middle of the blast furnace, wherein top gas is separated out by a furnace top CO2 separation system, and the furnace stack injection openings are configured to re-inject the top gas rich in CO and H2 into the blast furnace after preheating of claim 21.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2006/241498 A of Sato (with reference to its English machine translation) is considered relevant to claim 21. Sato teaches a blast furnace operation method injecting a natural gas as an auxiliary reducing agent (Abstract, [0009]-[0026]).
JP S63166911 A of Wakimoto (with reference to its English machine translation) is considered relevant to claim 21. Wakimoto teaches an oxygen blast furnace with gas blowing nozzles arranged on the furnace wall (Abstract). Wakimoto teaches the preheating gas injection nozzles 2 are above the tuyeres 3 (page 7 of Description, Figure 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights