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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment filed 01/13/2026 for application 18724020.
Claims 1-15 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 16-18 remain cancelled.
The previous heading of the rejection has been corrected to reflect the body of the rejection presented previously: Claims 1-15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANUMAKONDA (USPGPUB 2009/0287029) in view of LI (CN105540607A) in view of the machine translation of LI and in view of ELAM et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0220989A1) and ZHANG (USPGPUB 2014/0335586).
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/13/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-15 and 19-21 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANUMAKONDA (USPGPUB 2009/0287029) in view of LI (CN105540607A) in view of the machine translation of LI and in view of ELAM et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0220989A1) and ZHANG (USPGPUB 2014/0335586) as set forth in the last Office action because:
The facts are presented are not germane to the rejection at issue.
Applicant states that ANUMAKONDA teaches exemplary metals with support. ZSM-23 is taught in ANUMAKONDA as a support and differs from the “above-captioned” application in that ZSM-23 is used as an active component of the catalyst.
The claims do not reflect that ZSM-23 is an active component of the catalyst. The claims teach ZSM-23 with physical properties.
Applicant argues that although ANUMAKONDA teaches ZSM-23, ANUMAKONDA does not teach which catalyst is used and does not disclose any porosity, BL ratio, nor SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of ZSM-23.
The supporting references are relied on to teach using a ZSM-23 with those physical properties.
Applicant states that although LI teaches hierarchical ZSM-23 catalysts that are used for hydroisomerization, LI teaches production of C20-C30 alkane products and one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect that the ZSM-23 catalysts taught in LI may be used in any and every hydroisomerization process. Applicant states that C20-C30 alkanes are typical compositions are lube oils and are not suitable components for aviation fuels.
The teachings of LI are not relied on to teach using the specific hierarchical ZSM-23 taught in LI to be the ZSM-23 used in ANUMAKONDA.
The teachings of LI are relied on to teach the motivation to use a ZSM-23 with 2 different porosities.
LI teaches that creating larger mesoporous channels, forming a hierarchical structure increases the number of exposed pores and increases isomerization activity.
Applicant argues that the material of ELAM would not be applied to one of ordinary skill in the art as ELAM teaches “artificial zeolites” and not microporous, crystalline zeolites like ZSM-23 and the material of ELAM could not be interchanged and would disrupt the process of ANUMAKONDA and render ANUMAKONDA’s process inoperable.
The teachings of ELAM are not relied on to combine the material of ELAM with ANUMAKONDA.
The teachings of ELAM are relied on to teach modifying the ratio of acid sites of a ZSM-23.
ELAM teaches a process that can modify the Bronsted acidity by modifying Al2O3 and SiO2. ELAM teaches a motivation for higher Bronsted acidity.
Applicant points out that LI teaches the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 in the preparation of a hierarchical ZSM-23 and not the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 of the product.
LI does teach the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 in the preparation of a hierarchical ZSM-23 and not explicitly the product hierarchical ZSM-23. However, absent some reasoning or expectation to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 in the preparation of the hierarchical ZSM-23 was chosen with the final hierarchical ZSM-23 in mind.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANUMAKONDA (USPGPUB 2009/0287029) in view of LI (CN105540607A) in view of the machine translation of LI and in view of ELAM et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0220989A1) and ZHANG (USPGPUB 2014/0335586).
The machine translation of LI will hereafter be referring to as LI.
Regarding claim 1, ANUMAKONDA teaches a process for the production of transportation fuels from renewable feedstocks.
The process allows for an operator to select the specific type of aviation fuel or blending component or diesel fuel or blending component to be produced and thus the specifications of the fuels/components and the relative yields of each so long as the yields selected allow the fuel specifications to be met. (Para 13 of ANUMAKONDA)
Renewable feedstocks contain a variety of contaminants such as alkali metals, e.g., sodium and potassium. An optional first pretreatment is to remove as much of these contaminants as possible to form pretreated renewable feedstocks. (Para 15 of ANUMAKONDA) ZHANG teaches nitrogen and sulfur are impurities that may poison catalysts. (Para 116 of ZHANG) Other impurities such as silicon and phosphorus would be expected to be minimal given that the feedstock may include biomass that would not be expected to have significant amounts of silicon and phosphorus.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove as much of the variety of contaminants present in renewable feedstocks before the process that ANUMAKONDA teaches: (a) providing the renewable feedstock, b) pre-treating the renewable feedstock by reducing the amount of impurities therein not to include: more than 10 w-ppm alkali metal and alkaline earth metal impurities, calculated as elemental alkaline and alkaline earth metals; more than 10 w-ppm other metals, calculated as elemental metals; more than 1000 w-ppm nitrogen containing impurities, calculated as elemental nitrogen; more than 30 w-ppm phosphorus containing impurities, calculated as elemental phosphorus; more than 5 w-ppm silicon containing impurities, calculated as elemental silicon, to produce a pre-treated feedstock.
The pretreated renewable feedstocks are subjected to hydrogenation and hydrodeoxygenation to form a reaction product. Deoxygenation conditions include a relatively low pressure of about 1724 kPa absolute (250 psia) to about 10.342 kPa absolute (1500 psia), a temperature of about 200° C. to about 460°C, and a liquid hourly space velocity of about 0.25 to about 4 hr-1. (Para 18 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (c) subjecting the pre-treated feedstock to hydrodeoxygenation reaction to produce a hydrodeoxygenated stream, wherein the hydrodeoxygenation reaction comprises one or more of: a, a temperature in the range from 250°C to 400°C, b. a pressure in the range from 10 bar to 200 bar, c. a WHSV in the range from 0.5 h-1 to 3h-1, and a H2 flow from 356 to 1500 N-L H2/L feed.
The hydrodeoxygenation catalysts are taught to include nickel or nickel/molybdenum dispersed on a high surface area support or one or more noble metal catalytic elements dispersed on a high surface area support. Non-limiting examples of noble metals include Pt and/or Pd dispersed on gamma-aluminas. (Para 17 of ANUMAKONDA) (a hydrodeoxygenation catalyst selected from Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Mo, Ru, Rh, and W or any combination thereof, on a support to produce a hydrodeoxygenated stream)
The reaction product from hydrogenation and deoxygenation reactions comprise both a liquid portion and a gaseous portion. The liquid portion is separated from the gaseous portion. (Para 19 of ANUMAKONDA) (d) subjecting the hydrodeoxygenated stream to a gas-liquid separation to produce a gaseous stream and a bydrodeoxygenated liquid stream)
The liquid portion comprises a hydrocarbon portion that comprises n-paraffins. The reaction product is further reacted under isomerization conditions to isomerize at least a portion of the n-paraffins. (Para 19 of ANUMAKONDA) Isomerization is used with a catalyst that comprise a metal such as platinum or palladium on a support such as ZSM-23. (Para 27 of ANUMAKONDA) The isomerization conditions include a temperature of about 150°C to about 360°C and a pressure of about 1724 kPa absolute (250 psia) to about 4726 kPa absolute (700 psia). (Para 30 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (e) subjecting the hydrodeoxygenated liquid stream to hydroisomerization reaction conditions, in the presence of a metal impregnated hierarchical ZSM-23 catalyst, wherein the metal is selected from platinum, palladium, nickel and iridium, and any combinations thereof, at a temperature from 250°C to 340°C, and in the presence of added hydrogen, to produce a hydroisomerized stream.
LI is relied on to teach the motivation to use a ZSM-23 with 2 different porosities.
LI teaches the preparation of a ZSM-23 molecular sieve with mesopore-micropore hierarchical structure.
LI teaches that ZSM-23 is used for isomerization. LI further teaches that creating larger mesoporous channels, forming a hierarchical structure increases the number of exposed pores. The increase in number of exposed pores increases isomerization activity. (pages 2 and 3 of LI)
LI further teaches that the method taught in LI is a simple and low-cost process for producing a ZSM-23 molecular sieve with mesoporous-microporous hierarchical structure.
LI teaches that the molar ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 is 1:0.002-0.03. The molar ratio would also be 33 to 500.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
ELAM et al. is relied on to teach the ratio of acid sites of ZSM-23 that may be used.
ELAM et al. teach artificial zeolites.
ELAM et al. teach zeolites may be used in the petrochemical, fine chemical and fuel industries. ELAM et al. teach acid sites on metal oxide surfaces can be either metal ions (Lewis acids) or hydroxyl groups (Bronsted acids) (Para 3 of ELAM et al.)
ELAM et al. teach Lewis acid sites may be converted to Bronsted acid sites by depositing silicon dioxide. 1 cycle of Al2O3 may be followed by Y cycles of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Para 30 of ELAM et al.) The ratio of Lewis acid site to Bronsted acid site can be tailored from 0 to 8. (reference claim 15 of ELAM et al.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hierarchical ZSM-23 taught in modified ANUMAKONDA to increase the Bronsted acid sites on the ZSM-23.
ELAM et al. teach that Bronsted acidity is believed to be tied to concentration of Bronsted acid sites. Weaker Bronsted acidity inhibits usefulness.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
The concentration of paraffins produced is from about 8 to about 24 carbon atoms. One product is diesel and one product is aviation fuel. Fuel produced can meet specifications for aviation turbine fuels, gasoline, as well as jet fuels such as JP-4. (Para 31 and 32 of ANUMAKONDA) (g) separating the renewable aviation fuel or components thereto from the hydroisomerized stream.
ZHANG teaches that kerosene-type jet fuel has hydrocarbons in the range of C9-C16. (Para 100 of ZHANG) Aviation Gasoline has hydrocarbons in the range of C4-C10. (120 and table 5 of ZHANG)
The gasoline and jet fuels in ANUMAKONDA would be expected to have jet fuel in the range of C9-C16 and aviation gasoline in the range of C4-C10.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
(wherein the renewable aviation fuel or components thereto comprises C3- C9 hydrocarbons suitable for aviation gasoline or components thereto, and C10-C16 hydrocarbons, preferably C10-C16 hydrocarbons suitable for jet fuel or components thereto.)
Normal paraffins are converted to iso paraffins. (Para 26 of ANUMAKONDA)
Aviation fuel includes those of isoparaffinic kerosene or iPK, also known as a synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) or synthetic jet fuel. iPK would be expected to comprise isoparaffins with a minor amount of impurities. (Para 12 of ANUMAKONDA) (Aviation fuel comprises at least 95 wt-%, preferably at least 97 wt-% i-paraffins)
Regarding claim 2, paraffins having eight or less carbons from the isomerization zone effluent may be conducted to the reforming zone. (Para 45 of ANUMAKONDA) (step g) further comprises separating a fraction rich in renewable C1 -C4 hydrocarbons from the hydroisomerized stream)
Regarding claim 3, deoxygenation conditions include a relatively low pressure of about 1724 kPa absolute (250 psia) to about 10.342 kPa absolute (1500 psia), a temperature of about 200° C. to about 460°C, and a liquid hourly space velocity of about 0.25hr-1 to about 4 hr-1 (Para 18 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (in step c) temperature is from 260°C to 380°C, preferably from 280°C to 360°C, such as from 300°C to 330°C, pressure is from 20 bar to 100 bar, preferably from 20 bar to 80 bar, a weight hourly space velocity (WHSV) is in the range from 0.5 h-1 to 3.0. h-1, preferably from 0.7 h-1 to 2.5 h-1, most preferably from 1.0 h-1 to 2.0 h-1; and H2 flow is in the range from 350 to 1100 N-L H2/L feed, preferably from 350 to 1000 N-L H2/L feed)
Regarding claim 4, zeolites are taught to comprise pores in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 nm and volumes from about 0.10 to 0.35 cm3/g (Para 3 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (hierarchical ZSM- 23 has one or more of the following features: i. volume of micropores is more than 0.03 mL/g, preferably more than 0.06 mL/g, ii, volume of mesopores is more than 0.25 mL/g, preferably more than 0.60 mL/g)
Regarding claim 5, supports are taught along with ZSM-23. (Para 27 of ANUMAKONDA)
Regarding claim 6, one of ordinary skill in the art would separate out C17 and higher hydrocarbons from the effluent from hydrodeoxygenation because hydroisomerization would not change the number of carbon atoms, and ZHANG teaches that kerosene-type jet fuel has hydrocarbons in the range of C9-C16. (Para 100 of ZHANG)
One of ordinary skill in the art would remove C17 and higher hydrocarbons if the desired product to be maximized are the kerosene-type jet fuels.
(gas liquid separation of step d) further comprises separating C17 and higher hydrocarbons from the hydrodeoxygenated stream)
Regarding claim 7, isomerization conditions include a temperature of about 150 to about 360°C. (Para 30 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (hydroisomerization reaction comprises a temperature in the range from 270°C to 290°C)
Regarding claim 8, the product of the deoxygenation reaction zone is contacted with an isomerization catalyst in the presence of hydrogen at isomerization conditions to isomerize the normal paraffins to branched paraffins. (Para 22 of ANUMAKONDA)
Isomerization conditions include a pressure of about 1724vkPa absolute (250 psia) to about 4726 kPa absolute (700 psia) (Para 30 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (pressure of the hydrogen in step c) is 10-50 bar)
Regarding claim 9, the hydrodeoxygenation catalyst includes nickel/molybdenum dispersed on a high surface area support such as gamma-aluminas. (Para 17 of ANUMAKONDA) (hydrodeoxygenation catalyst is selected from a group consisting of CoMo, NiMo, NiW, and CoNiMo on a support, wherein the support is preferably alumina and/or silica)
Regarding claim 10, deoxygenation conditions include a relatively low pressure of about 1724 kPa absolute (250 psia) to about 10.342 kPa absolute (1500 psia), a temperature of about 200°C. to about 460°C, and a liquid hourly space velocity of about 0.25hr-1 to about 4 hr-1 (Para 18 of ANUMAKONDA)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. (hydrodeoxygenation reaction comprises temperature in the range from 250°C to 400°C, pressure in the range from 20 bar to 80 bar, a WHSV in the range from 0.5 h-1 to 3h-1; and H2 flow of 350-1500 N-L H2/L feed, and a hydrodeoxygenation catalyst.)
Regarding claim 11, the liquid component of hydrodeoxygenation reactor effluent comprises primarily normal paraffins having a carbon number from about 8 to about 24. (Para 48 of ANUMAKONDA) The gaseous component containing largely hydrogen, vaporous water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and propane.
The hydrocarbons present would be expected to be paraffins absent a minimal amount of impurities.
(hydrodeoxygenated stream comprises at least 92 wt-%, preferably at least 95 wt-%, more preferably at least 99 wt-% paraffins based on total weight of hydrocarbon products)
Regarding claim 12, aviation fuel includes those of isoparaffinic kerosene or iPK, also known as a synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) or synthetic jet fuel. iPK would be expected to comprise isoparaffins with a minor amount of impurities. (Para 12 of ANUMAKONDA) (Aviation fuel comprises at least 95 wt-%, preferably at least 97 wt-% i-paraffins)
Regarding claim 13, some embodiments have only minimal branching to overcome cold flow problems of the normal paraffins. The predominate isomerization product is generally a mono-branched hydrocarbon. In other embodiments, a greater amount of isomerization is desired. (Para 26 of ANUMAKONDA)
Depending on the severity of the cold flow problems, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the conditions to result in a higher percentage of multibranched hydrocarbons such as at least 70 wt-% multibranched C16 hydrocarbons.
(C16 hydrocarbons of the renewable aviation fuel comprise at least 70 wt-% multibranched C16 hydrocarbons)
Regarding claim 14, the renewable feedstocks include examples such as plant oils such as corn, rapeseed canola, Soybean and algal oils, animal fats and oils such as tallow, fish oils and various waste streams such as yellow and brown greases and sewage sludge. (Para 4 of ANUMAKONDA) (feedstock is selected from waste and residues of animal fat or oil, plant fat or oil, and fish fat or oil, and mixtures thereof, preferably the feedstock is selected from palm oil residues and wastes, such as palm effluent sludge, palm oil mill effluent, sludge palm oil, palm oil fatty acid; tall oil material; used cooking oil; acid oils; animal fats, such as brown grease; spent bleaching earth oil; and technical corn oil)
Regarding claim 15, the renewable feedstocks include triglycerides. (Para 4 of ANUMAKONDA)
Regarding claim 19, LI teaches a ZSM-23 with mesoporous-microporous hierarchical structure. LI teaches that ZSM-23 is produced with MTT microporous structure and the mesoporous channel structure is produced after calcination. (Page 2-3 of LI)
Regarding claims 20-21, zeolites are taught to comprise pores in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 nm and volumes from about 0.10 to 0.35 cm3/g. (Para 3 of ANUMAKONDA) LI teaches that the surface area of the micropore area is 90-190 m2/g and the surface area of the mesopore is from 90-190 m2.g.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a volume of micropores may be more than 0.03 mL/g or more than 0.06 mL/g.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a volume of mesopores may be more than 025 mL/g or more than 0.60 mL/g.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
The heading of the rejection has been corrected to clarify: Claim(s) 1-15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANUMAKONDA (USPGPUB 2009/0287029) in view of LI (CN105540607A) in view of the machine translation of LI and in view of ELAM et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0220989A1) and ZHANG (USPGPUB 2014/0335586).
The reasoning in the rejection has not been changed.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that ANUMAKONDA teaches exemplary metals with support. ZSM-23 is taught in ANUMAKONDA as a support and differs from the “above-captioned” application in that ZSM-23 is used as an active component of the catalyst. Applicant argues that although ANUMAKONDA teaches ZSM-23, ANUMAKONDA does not teach which catalyst is used and does not disclose any porosity, BL ratio, nor SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of ZSM-23.
The claims do not reflect that ZSM-23 is an active component of the catalyst. The claims teach ZSM-23 with physical properties.
The supporting references are relied on to teach modifying a ZSM-23 with those physical properties.
The teachings of LI are not relied on to teach using the specific hierarchical ZSM-23 taught in LI to be the ZSM-23 used in ANUMAKONDA.
The teachings of LI are relied on to teach the motivation to use a ZSM-23 with 2 different porosities.
LI teaches that creating larger mesoporous channels, forming a hierarchical structure increases the number of exposed pores and increases isomerization activity.
The teachings of ELAM are not relied on to combine the material of ELAM with ANUMAKONDA.
The teachings of ELAM are relied on to teach modifying the ratio of acid sites of a ZSM-23.
ELAM teaches a process that can modify the Bronsted acidity by modifying Al2O3 and SiO2. ELAM teaches a motivation for higher Bronsted acidity.
Applicant points out that LI teaches the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 in the preparation of a hierarchical ZSM-23 and not the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 of the product.
LI does teach the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 in the preparation of a hierarchical ZSM-23 and not explicitly the product hierarchical ZSM-23.
However, absent some reasoning or expectation to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the molar ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 in the preparation of the hierarchical ZSM-23 was chosen with the final hierarchical ZSM-23 in mind.
It is unclear what applicant is stating in the comparison of the hierarchical ZSM-23 catalysts taught in LI with the current application.
The rejection is based on the ZSM-23 catalyst taught in ANUMAKONDA that is modified by the teachings of LI and ELAM.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771