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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4, 18-24, 27-30, 32,34-40, 42-43, 50-51, 75 and 197-202, in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 and supplemental response 5/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 52 65-66 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 and supplemental response 5/4/2026. Non-elected claims were cancelled in the response on 4/20/2026 and supplemental response 5/4/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “steam” appears to be a typo of “stream” on line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-23, 27-30, 32, 34 and 37-39 and 198 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 18-23, 27-30, 32, 34 and 37-39, recitations in claims 18, 27, and 37, each reciting “a first reflux stream and a second reflux stream” are confusing because these claims depend upon claim 197, which recites “a first reflux stream and a second reflux stream”, therefore this limitation in each of claims 18, 27, and 37 should be amended to recite “the first reflux stream and the second reflux stream” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 198, the claim appears to be missing a period at the end, all claims must conclude with a period.
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, 4, 18-22, 40, 42-43, 46, 75, 197 and 200-202 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Patel (US 2009/0107175).
Regarding claim 1, 197, Patel teaches a multiple reflux stream hydrocarbon separation process (title, abstract), Patel teaches the process comprising: receiving a natural gas stream 20; cooling in 30 and separating in 50 a first portion the natural gas stream to form a plurality of reflux streams 52/69 (as per claim 197: first reflux stream 52, second reflux stream 69); directing the plurality of reflux streams into a first fractionator 70; cooling in 90 a second portion of the natural gas stream 54 and forming an additional reflux stream 62; directing the additional reflux stream 62 into the first fractionator 70; operating the first fractionator 70 to fractionate the plurality of reflux streams and the additional reflux stream, wherein the operating of the first fractionator forms a first liquid product stream 77 and a first vapor effluent stream 78; and withdrawing the first liquid product stream and the first vapor effluent stream from the first fractionator (see Fig 3, 5, [0019, 0024-0025,0033-0041,0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 200, Patel further discloses heat exchanging in 40 a portion of the liquid product with incoming natural gas stream in 40 (Fig 3, 5).
Regarding claim 201, Patel further discloses the natural gas stream 20 is divided into plural stream 20a/b that are separately cooled in 30/40 (Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 202, Patel further discloses the natural gas stream 20 is divided into plural stream 20a/b that are separately cooled in 30/40 with the vapor product 78 and liquid product in lines 71-76 respectively (Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 4, Patel further discloses the natural gas stream 20 is divided into plural stream 20a/b that are separately cooled in 30/40 with the vapor product 78 and liquid product in lines 71-76 respectively (Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 18, Patel further discloses wherein first reflux stream 69 is directed into the first fractionator 70 at a location above the second reflux stream 52 (see Figs 3,5).
Regarding claim 19, Patel further discloses wherein the additional reflux stream (in line 68) is directed into the first fractionator 70 at a location above the first and second reflux streams 52/69(see Figs 3,5).
Regarding claim 20-22, Patel further discloses wherein the plurality of reflux streams comprise a third reflux stream 62 that is directed into the first fractionator 70 above locations of other introduced refluxed streams as claimed (see Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 24, Patel further discloses wherein forming the additional reflux stream 54 comprises combining the second portion of the natural gas stream 20 with at least a portion of the first vapor effluent stream in line 126 (see Figs 3,5).
Regarding claim 40 and 42, Patel further discloses wherein the first liquid product stream comprises ethane, propane, butane, or combinations thereof ([0024]).
Regarding claim 43, Patel further discloses wherein the first fractionator is operated as a demethanizer 70 [0037].
Regarding claim 46, Patel further discloses wherein forming the additional reflux stream comprises separating the second portion of the natural gas stream into a vapor stream and a liquid stream in 60 wherein the additional reflux stream comprises at least a portion of the liquid stream (Figs 3, 5).
Regarding claim 75, Patel teaches a multiple reflux stream hydrocarbon separation process from an existing processing plant (title, abstract), Patel teaches the process comprising: receiving a natural gas stream 20; cooling in 30 and separating in 50 a first portion the natural gas stream to form a plurality of reflux streams 52; directing the plurality of reflux streams into a first fractionator 70; cooling in 90 a second portion of the natural gas stream 54 and forming an additional reflux stream 62; directing the additional reflux stream 62 into the first fractionator 70; operating the first fractionator 70 to fractionate the plurality of reflux streams and the additional reflux stream, wherein the operating of the first fractionator forms a first liquid product stream 77 and a first vapor effluent stream 78; and withdrawing the first liquid product stream and the first vapor effluent stream from the first fractionator (see Fig 3, 5, [0019, 0024-0025,0033-0041,0045-0046]).
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 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) 23, 198-199 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2009/0107175).
Regarding claim 23, Patel teaches all limitations as set forth above, Patel does not explicitly teach wherein the additional reflux stream is combined with the third reflux stream as a combined steam that is directed into the first fractionator at a location above the first and second reflux streams however the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that this was within the constructional design choice of the skilled artisan and would arrive at the instantly claimed configuration without undue experimentation and the expected results of achieving demethanization separation in the columns 70 (Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 198, Patel further does not explicitly disclose wherein cooling and separating the first portion of the natural gas stream into the first and second reflux streams comprises passing the first portion through a cold separator, withdrawing the second reflux stream from the cold separator as a liquid stream, and withdrawing the first reflux stream from the cold separator as a vapor stream, however the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that this was within the constructional design choice of the skilled artisan and would arrive at the instantly claimed configuration without undue experimentation and the expected results of achieving demethanization separation in the columns 70 (Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 199, Patel teaches all limitations as set forth above, Patel does not explicitly disclose comprising, after withdrawing the first and second reflux streams from the cold separator: combining a portion of the first reflux stream with a portion of the second reflux strea to form a combined reflux stream; and directing the combined reflux stream into the first fractionator however the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that this was within the constructional design choice of the skilled artisan and would arrive at the instantly claimed configuration without undue experimentation and the expected results of achieving demethanization separation in the columns 70 (Fig 3,5).
Claim(s) 27-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2009/0107175) as applied above and further in combination with Trebble (US 20003/0029190).
Regarding claim 27, Patel teaches all limitations as set forth above, Patel teaches NGL 77 obtained from bottom of demethanization column 70 contains a major portion of ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene and heavier components from inlet feed gas stream 20 (Fig 3, 5, [0038]), however is silent to the second fractionation as claimed.
Trebble teaches cryogenic natural gas liquids recovery process (title, abstract), Trebble teaches demethanizer column V504 receives and fractionates natural gas stream, the liquid stream 21 is pumped to deethanizer V516 to separate ethane from propane and heavier components, with a portion of the vapor recycled back to the demthanizer (Fig 3, [0059-0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further fractionate the bottoms of the demethanizer of Patel as taught by Trebble to separate valuable Propane, and further increase energy efficiency by including recycle and heat exchange as taught by Trebble in the process of Patel.
Regarding claim 28, the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that directing the first vapor effluent stream into the second fractionator, wherein the operating of the second fractionator fractionates the second portion of the natural gas stream and the first vapor effluent stream to form the second liquid product stream and the second vapor effluent stream was within the constructional design choice of the skilled artisan and would arrive at the instantly claimed configuration without undue experimentation and the expected results of achieving demethanization separation in the columns 70 (Fig 3,5).
Regarding claim 30, the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that the additional reflux stream combined with at least a portion of the first reflux stream and the second reflux stream prior to being directed into the first fractionator this within the constructional design choice of the skilled artisan and would arrive at the instantly claimed configuration without undue experimentation and the expected results of achieving demethanization separation in the columns 70 (Fig 3,5).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2009/0107175) in combination with Trebble (US 20003/0029190) as applied above and further in combination with Mak (US 2014/0060114).
Regarding claim 29, Patel discloses the process of claim 28, however fails to disclose wherein the second portion of the natural gas stream is input into the second fractionator at a location that is above a location where the first vapor effluent stream is input into the second fractionator.
Mak teaches to natural gas liquid recovery (title, abstract), Mak discloses a gas stream (8) is input into the second element (70) at a location that is above a location where the first vapor effluent stream (14, 16) is input into the second element (70) (Fig. 5 shows the claimed location; [0026]- The vapor portion 4 is expanded via the turboexpander 55 to about 550 psig at about -109 F. to form stream 8, which is fed to the top of absorber 70; [0028]- The absorber is stripped with hot compressor discharge stream 16 from the fractionator column 59).
Therefore it would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the configuration disclosed by Mak to the second portion of the natural gas stream, the second fractionator and the first vapor effluent stream disclosed by Patel to improve the NGL recovery (See Fluor, [0007]-[0008]).
Claim(s) 32, 35-39, 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 2009/0107175) in combination with Trebble (US 20003/0029190) as applied above and further in combination with Yamamori et al (US 2019/0128600).
Regarding claim 32, Patel discloses the process of claim 27, however, fails to disclose wherein forming the additional reflux stream comprises combining at least a portion of the second vapor effluent stream with the second portion of the natural gas stream.
Yamamori, drawn to separating hydrocarbons, discloses at least a portion of the second vapor effluent stream (22) with the second portion of the natural gas stream (31) (Fig. 8; [0082]- and vapor phase 31 is mixed with first overhead vapor 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the design disclosed by Yamamori to the second vapor effluent stream and the second portion of the natural gas stream disclosed by Patel to improve the recovery rate (See Yamamori; [0012]).
Regarding claim 35, Patel discloses the process of claim 2 and teaches the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that the additional reflux stream combined with at least a portion of the first reflux stream and the second reflux stream prior to being directed into the first fractionator however, Patel fails to discloses a reflux drum.
Yamamori, drawn to separating hydrocarbons, discloses reflux drum ([0103]- Totally condensed liquid 23 a flows through drum (first column reflux drum) 9 (stream 23 b),).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the reflux drum disclosed by Yamamori to the separator disclosed by Patel to facilitate the separating (See Yamamori; [0103]).
Regarding claim 36, Patel in view of Yamamori disclose the process of claim 35 and teaches the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that the additional reflux stream combined with at least a portion of the first reflux stream and the second reflux stream prior to being directed into the first fractionator.
Regarding claim 37, Patel discloses the process of claim 2 however fails to discloses a reflux drum.
Yamamori, drawn to separating hydrocarbons, discloses reflux drum ([0103]- Totally condensed liquid 23 a flows through drum (first column reflux drum) 9 (stream 23 b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the reflux drum disclosed by Yamamori to the separator disclosed by Patel to facilitate the separating (See Yamamori; [0103]).
Regarding claim 38, Patel in view of Yamamori disclose the process of claim 37 and teaches the various separations and combinations of Patel suggests that the additional reflux stream combined with at least a portion of the first reflux stream and the second reflux stream prior to being directed into the first fractionator.
Regarding claim 39, Patel in view of Yamamori disclose the process of claim 38. Yamamori further discloses comprising combining at least a portion of the second vapor stream (22) with the second input stream (29) prior to directing the second input stream into the reflux drum (9) (Fig. 8; [0066]-[0068]- mixed stream 23 of one (stream 29) of the divided streams and first overhead vapor 22 (these lines may be hereinafter called "dividing and mixing lines"). The dividing and mixing lines include a line from the condensed liquid outlet of condenser 11 to the juncture between stream 29 and stream 2 ... A step of totally condensing mixed stream 23 obtained from step (e) by exchanging heat with the feed LNG (stream 21 a which is pressurized if needed) in heat exchanger 2, to obtain liquid stream 23 a; [0103]- Totally condensed liquid 23 a flows through drum (first column reflux drum) 9 (stream 23 b)).
Regarding claim 50, Patel discloses the process of claim 46, wherein the separating comprises passing at least a portion of the second portion of the natural gas stream through a second fractionator (Fig. 2; [0044]- the combined stream 50 is combined with the first effluent gas stream 104 to form combined stream 113. The combined stream 113 is the fed to a bottom section of a second fractionator 110), however fails to disclose through reflux drum.
Yamamori, drawn to separating hydrocarbons, discloses reflux drum ([0103]- Totally condensed liquid 23 a flows through drum (first column reflux drum) 9 (stream 23 b),).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the reflux drum disclosed by Yamamori to the separating disclosed by Patel to facilitate the separating (See Yamamori; [0103]).
Regarding claim 51, Patel in view of Yamamori disclose the process of claim 50. Yamamori further discloses wherein the second portion of the natural gas stream is passed through the reflux drum (9) prior to passing through the second fractionator (3) (Fig. 4; [0103]- pressurized by feed LNG pump 1, and sent to first column 3 ... Totally condensed liquid 23 a flows through drum (first column reflux drum) 9 (stream 23 b), and is pressurized by first column reflux pump 6, and a part thereof is supplied to the overhead of the first column as reflux liquid 24).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 18-24, 27-30, 32,34-40, 42-43, 50-51, 75 and 197-202 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,621. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because features of dependent claims and routine constructional design choice are integrated into the instant independent claims and it would have been obvious to further enhance efficiency of the ‘621 patent through known means and incorporating dependent claims without undue experimentation or unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art doe s not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter of claim 34, specifically of separating the second vapor effluent stream into a third vapor effluent stream and a fourth vapor effluent stream; heat exchanging the third vapor effluent stream with at least a portion of the first portion of the natural gas stream; heat exchanging the fourth vapor effluent stream with at least a portion of the second portion of the natural gas stream; recombining the third and fourth vapor effluent streams into a combined vapor effluent stream; and mixing the combined vapor effluent stream with the second portion of the natural gas stream prior to directing the second input stream into the second fractionator. Further prior art cited, whether taken alone or combination, fails to disclose or suggest the particular arrangement of these parts as required by claim 34.
Patel (US 2009/0107175) is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, Patel teaches a multiple reflux stream hydrocarbon separation process (title, abstract), Patel teaches the process comprising: receiving a natural gas stream 20; cooling in 30 and separating in 50 a first portion the natural gas stream to form a plurality of reflux streams 52/69; directing the plurality of reflux streams into a first fractionator 70; cooling in 90 a second portion of the natural gas stream 54 and forming an additional reflux stream 62; directing the additional reflux stream 62 into the first fractionator 70; operating the first fractionator 70 to fractionate the plurality of reflux streams and the additional reflux stream, wherein the operating of the first fractionator forms a first liquid product stream 77 and a first vapor effluent stream 78; and withdrawing the first liquid product stream and the first vapor effluent stream from the first fractionator (see Fig 3, 5, [0019, 0024-0025,0033-0041,0045-0046]), however Patel does not teach separating the second vapor effluent stream into a third vapor effluent stream and a fourth vapor effluent stream; heat exchanging the third vapor effluent stream with at least a portion of the first portion of the natural gas stream; heat exchanging the fourth vapor effluent stream with at least a portion of the second portion of the natural gas stream; recombining the third and fourth vapor effluent streams into a combined vapor effluent stream; and mixing the combined vapor effluent stream with the second portion of the natural gas stream prior to directing the second input stream into the second fractionator.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soldati (US 4,976,849) teaches a fractionation process for separating acid gases from hydrocarbons in a multi column distillation method. Kaufman et al (US 5,372,009) teaches separating three gaseous components in a multi column distillation method. Mehra (US 5,546,764) teaches absorption distillation of feed gas in a multi column distillation method. Amin et al (US 2012/0233920) teaches hydrocarbon sour gas separation in a multi column distillation method. Lee et al (US 2012/0277497) teaches a multi column distillation method for separating light components. Ijima (US 2015/0353454) teaches carbon dioxide separation from a gas in a multi column distillation method. Horne (US 2017/0211877) teaches hydrocarbon gas separation in a multi column distillation method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights