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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-18 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are cancelled.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) to claims 1-2 and 5-18 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1 and cancellation of claims 6-7.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner, with the exception of the following. MPEP 609.04(a)(II) states, in part, that “In addition to the list of information, each information disclosure statement must also include a legible copy of: … (B) Each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed , other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office”. In the instant case, no original Spanish language copies of the foreign patent documents WO 2009146571 A2 or WO 2013140379 A2 cited have been supplied with the IDS. While the IDS is being considered at this time, subsequent IDS documents are expected to conform to the aforementioned standards.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-18 are 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 1 recites “determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile based on… the stability of the first level of the stockpile” in lines 19-21. The instant specification discloses “After the material is compacted in a stockpile, the compaction may determine the stability of the pile and how the irrigation may flow through that level of the stockpile” (instant specification: [00155]) and “…determining… a production of the metal in at least one of the first lift or the second lift…” (instant specification: [0051]), however the instant specification does not disclose determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile based on a stability of the first level of the stockpile, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites "adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level, based on… the faster path to pregnant leach solution" in lines 23-25. The instant specification discloses a faster path in the second level (instant specification: [00155]), and that the leaching operations may be adjusted (instant specification: [0019, 0046-0049]), however the instant specification does not disclose adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level based on a faster path to pregnant leach solution, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 1-2, 5, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile based on… the stability of the first level of the stockpile" in lines 19-21. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the stability of the first level of the stockpile is actually used to determine the amount of metal removed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level, based on… the faster path to pregnant leach solution" in lines 23-25. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the faster path to pregnant leach solution is used in or influences the adjustment of leaching operations in the second level.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20120297928 A1, cited in IDS filed 10/15/2024) in view of Slupsky (WO 2017096489 A1, original document supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024) and Van Staden et al. (“Towards fundamentally based heap leaching scale-up”, supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lang teaches a method (Title, Abstract) with a leach heap with an upper lift (analogous to a second level) and a lower lift (analogous to a first level) [0075], comprising determining which parts of material in a leaching model are compacted [0084], where as the leach model is based on data from an actual leaching [0066], determining compaction in the model is analogous to determining an amount of compacted material in a first level of a stockpile. Lang teaches constructing an irrigation leach model (e.g., [0075]), thus the material in the heap that is irrigated is known (i.e., first and second amounts of material that is irrigated), thus Lang teaches obtaining data equivalent to determining a percentage of compacted material in a first level of a stockpile according to claim 1.
Lang does not teach determining a stability of the first level of the stockpile.
Slupsky teaches a method of monitoring a body of granular material (Abstract), such as in heap leaching [0002, 0004], thus Slupsky and Lang are analogous to the instant application as both are related to heap leaching processes. Slupsky teaches compaction of ore within the heap can be used to determine a stability of a level of the stockpile to avoid structural failure of the heap [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a stability of the first level of the stockpile as taught by Slupsky using the compaction data of Lang, as doing so would avoid structural failure of the heap. As Lang teaches the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0010, 0084-0085], determining a stability of the first level of the stockpile in the process of Lang in view of Slupsky is based on the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile.
Lang teaches determining how irrigation flows through the first level of the stockpile during the leaching operations [0067]; where as the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0010, 0084-0085], thus Lang teaches determining the irrigation flows during leaching operations is based on the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile (i.e., are impacted by the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile).
Lang teaches first and second layers in the heap (where the second level is above the first) (e.g., [0010, 0075]). Lang does not teach wherein the second level includes a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations.
Van Staden is directed to testing to analyze heap leaching of ores (Abstract), thus Lang and Van Staden are analogous to the instant application as they are directed to leaching a stockpile. Van Staden teaches compaction of the ore particle bed results in an increase in spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels (Abstract, Fig. 6). Because ore compaction occurs under the pressure of its own weight (pg. 14 right column paragraph 5), compaction and in turn increased spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels would be more prevalent at lower levels of the heap.
Therefore, the heap of Lang would have been expected by one or ordinary skill to have more frequent flow channels and less tortuosity of such in an upper level of the heap compared to a lower level of the heap where leach solution would flow more freely. Lang therefore suggests the second level includes a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations and wherein irrigation during the leaching operations is more restricted due to the percentage of compacted material than the irrigation in that second level.
Lang teaches determining in-situ element concentrations (where a difference in concentration in level in the stockpile over a duration of time comprises an amount of metal removed in the first level) [0074], where as the amount of flow of irrigation solution intrinsically correlates with the amount of metal the irrigation solution removes from the heap, and stability of the heap (e.g., the heap not experiencing structural failure) is necessary to remove metal, Lang determines an amount of metal removed in the first level based on the irrigation flows being reduced and the stability of the first level of the stockpile.
Lang teaches adjusting irrigation rates [0030] of the leaching operations based on the percentage of compacted material [0084-0085], and adjusting the irrigation rates to optimize an output of metal production (i.e., remove more metal) [0084-0085], thus Lang teaches leaching such that more metal is removed in the heap by the additional leaching solution, including in the second level. Slupsky teaches compaction of the material occurs within heaps as pressure from the material generates compressive and sheer forces [0010], thus material in the first level would be more compacted than in the second level. Therefore, the adjustments based on compaction in the heap of Lang are intrinsically based on the lower percentage of the compacted material in the second level of the stockpile compared to the first level and the faster path to pregnant solution in the second level. Lang in view of Van Staden teaches a faster path in the second level of the stockpile as noted above, and that more tortuous flow paths reduce leaching kinetics (i.e., a slower path results in less metal being removed), thus the less tortuous faster path in the second level would result in more metal being removed in the second level.
Regarding claim 2, Lang teaches determining in-situ element concentrations (i.e., metal production in the first level of the stockpile) [0074]; whereas the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0084-0085], determining the metal production of the metal in the first level of the stockpile is based on the percentage of the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile.
Regarding claim 5, Lang teaches first and second layers in the heap (where the second level is above the first) (e.g., [0010, 0075]), where Lang measures copper concentrations in the levels (i.e., an impact) [0075]; thus, Lang teaches determining an impact of the leaching operations on the second level above the first level of the stockpile. As the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0084-0085], determining an impact of the leaching operations on the second level above the first level is based on the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile.
Regarding claim 8, Lang in view of Van Staden as noted above would have been expected by one or ordinary skill to have more frequent flow channels and less tortuosity of such in an upper level of the heap compared to a lower level of the heap where leach solution would flow more freely. Lang in view of Van Staden therefore suggests wherein irrigation during the leaching operations is more restricted due to the percentage of compacted material than the irrigation in that second level.
Regarding claim 18, Lang teaches determining a percent of metal [0075] in one or more of the layers (i.e., a plurality of submodules) in a lift (i.e., the first level) [0075]. Lang teaches leaching operations including percolating of at least a portion of leaching from the second level to the first level (Abstract, [0010]), thus the percent of metal in the submodules is determined by Lang based on percolating of at least a portion of leaching from the leaching operations.
Lang does not teach creating a tonnage weighted average of the metal for the one or more of the plurality of submodules in the first level.
Lang teaches determining heights of the layers [0075], which would result in the process of Lang [0075] including determining the area of the heap. Slupsky teaches setting a slope (i.e., angle) of about 45° for the side of the heap to improve stability [0085] (therefore also determining an angle of the layers to be 45°). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an angle of about 45° as the slope of the heap as taught by Slupsky in constructing the heap of Lang as doing so would improve heap stability.
As in Lang in view of Slupsky the angle, height, and area of the base of the heap are known, the area of the top and bottom of each layer (analogous to submodules) of the first level and the second level can also be determined, which can be expressed as a percent of overlap, and this quantity is based on the one or more of a plurality of submodules in the second level that are respectively over the plurality of submodules in the first level, then one carrying out a method as suggested by Lang in view of Slupsky will also determine the percent of overlap of the one or more of the plurality of submodules in that second level.
Lang teaches the percent of metal in the submodules [0075]. As the angle, height, and area of the base of the heap are known, the volume of each submodule can also be determined, and as Lang teaches the bulk density of the heap materials ([0084-0085], Table 2), the tonnage of each layer (i.e., submodule) can also be determined. Therefore, the method of Lang in view of Slupsky determines the tonnage of material in the one or more of the plurality of submodules in the first level. Therefore, Lang in view of Slupsky measures/determines factors equivalent to creating a tonnage weighted average of the metal for the one or more of the plurality of submodules in the first level based on a percent of overlap, the percent of metal, and a tonnage of material in the one or more of the plurality of submodules in the first level.
Lang teaches transmitting an instruction signal to a leaching device for further adjusting pressure, mass flow rate, and volumetric flow rate of the leaching operations [0030] to optimize an output of metal production, based on the bulk density [0084-0085], and metal concentration of the heap [0075], (i.e., based on a total tonnage weighted average of the metal in the first level). Therefore, Lang performs steps equivalent to adding the tonnage weighted average of metal for the one or more of the plurality of submodules in the first level to create a total tonnage weighted average of the metal in the first level.
Claims 9-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Slupsky and Van Staden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruan et al. (CN 1475585 A, original document and machine translation supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Lang teaches controlling the feed acid concentration and flow rate (i.e., total acid given) [0070, 0077], but Lang does not teach determining an acid gap in the stockpile.
Ruan teaches an acid balance method for heap leaching [0007], where Ruan and Lang are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to heap leaching. Ruan teaches calculating a theoretical acid consumption (i.e., a total acid consumption) [0020-0021] and an acid balance (i.e., determining an acid gap based on a difference between total acid given and total acid consumption) [0021-0022]. Ruan teaches the calculation and implementation of an acid gap prevents loss in metal extraction and recovery rate [0002]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a total acid consumption and calculated an acid gap and used the acid gap to adjust leaching as taught by Ruan in the process of Lang, as doing so would prevent loss of metal extraction and recovery rate as taught by Ruan. Further, one of ordinary skill would recognize that determining a total acid consumption would provide a target maximum amount of acid to add or produce to the first level, beyond which adding further acid has no benefit, improving the economics of the leaching process. As Lang in view of Ruan teaches adjusting pressure, mass flow rate, and volumetric flow rate of the leaching operations in the stockpile (i.e., adjusting leaching operations) [0030] based on the acid gap (Ruan: [0003, 0021-0022]) and the percentage of the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile (Lang: [0084-0085]), Lang in view of Ruan teaches or suggests all of the features of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Ruan teaches determining an impact on metal production in the first level of the stockpile based on the acid gap [0002-0003]. Lang teaches determining in-situ element concentrations (i.e., an impact on metal production in the first level of the stockpile) [0074], where the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0084-0085].
Regarding claim 11, Ruan teaches determining an impact on metal production [0002-0003] based on the total acid given in the first level of the stockpile (e.g., [0020-0021]). Lang teaches determining in-situ element concentrations (i.e., an impact on metal production in the first level of the stockpile) [0074], where the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile is determined and used to adjust the leaching [0084-0085].
Regarding claim 12, Ruan teaches metal extraction and recovery rate are affected when insufficient acid is provided to the heap [0002-0003] (i.e., determining an impact on metal production based on an under-dosing amount of the total acid given in the first level of the stockpile). Lang teaches determining an impact on metal production based on the percentage of the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile ([0084-0085], Table 2), thus Lang in view of Ruan teaches all of the features of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Ruan teaches wherein the acid gap is used to determine an acid dosage [0022, 0026-0037] for leaching the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile [0002-0003, 0026-0037].
Regarding claim 14, Ruan teaches determining an acid gap [0021-0022] and the total acid consumption in the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile [0020-0021], thus Ruan performs steps equivalent to determining an acid gap percentage based on the acid gap divided by the total acid consumption in the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile.
Regarding claim 16, Lang in view of Ruan teaches incorporating the acid gap (Ruan: [0021-0022]) and the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile into a leaching model (Lang: [0084-0085]). Lang teaches parameters in the model may be adjusted to improve accuracy (i.e., to reduce errors) [0070], thus the acid gap and compaction parameters would be used in the leaching model to reduce errors.
Regarding claim 17, Lang in view of Ruan, discussed above, is silent to determining an amount of the total acid given based on the least impact to metal production and the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile in the process described therein. However, it has long been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A-B. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a total acid given that minimizes negative impacts on metal production and on the compacted material.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Slupsky, Van Staden, and Ruan as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Young et al. (“Technical Report Summary of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”, supplied with Office Action dated 12/09/2024).
Lang teaches determining soluble metal remaining in the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile [0075]. As acid is used to perform all leaching in Lang, one of ordinary skill would recognize that when an acid gap of 0 is achieved (i.e., acid given is equal to the total possible acid consumption), all soluble metal has been extracted from the heap. Lang teaches determining an initial soluble metal concentration in the heap (Fig. 5.1, [0075]), but does not teach this determination to be based on a quick leach test.
Young teaches ore samples can be analyzed for ferric sulfate-soluble copper assay (i.e., acid-soluble metal) by a quick leach test (QLT) (8.2 Assaying Methods). Further, Young, Lang, and the instant application are all analogous as all are drawn to acid leaching of ore. Young teaches QLTs have been developed for each mineralogical ore type and are used together with total copper and acid-soluble copper analysis to estimate the ore resource (i.e., a percentage of leachable minerals in the material) (8.2 Assaying Methods, 8.5. Comment on Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered with the following effect:
In response to applicant's argument that Lang does not teach determining that the material in a second level of the stockpile has a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations, the Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 8-18 over Lang in view of Slupsky alone or further in view of additional art are withdrawn. These claims are now rejected under a new ground of rejection as necessitated by amendment further in view of Van Staden.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lang does not disclose determining how irrigation flows through the first level of the stockpile during leaching operations based on the percentage of compacted material in the first level of the stockpile (see pg. 8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lang teaches at paragraph [0067] that “data is collected from the horizontal and/or vertical wireline data collection tools while irrigating the heap lift. For example, the collected data may include in-situ material parameters of the heap layers and in-situ solution parameters of the solution flowing in the heap layers”, which would collect data regarding irrigation flows in the first level of the stockpile, from which the mental process of determining any reduction in the irrigation flows through the first level of the stockpile compared to the irrigation flows through a second level of the stockpile could be performed.
Therefore, as Lang teaches collecting irrigation flow data from the heap [0067], which would determine any reduction in the irrigation flows through the first level of the stockpile. As Lang teaches compaction is measured by the bulk density [0085], where the bulk density is a parameter of the leaching model used to adjust the model [0084], and where the model is used to adjust leaching [0010], any reduction in irrigation flow through the first level of the stockpile of Lang is intrinsically based on the percentage of compaction.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lang does not teach determining an amount of metal that is removed in the first level of the stockpile based on the irrigation flows being reduced in the first level and based on the stability of the first level of the stockpile (see pg. 8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lang is taken in view of Slupsky, where Slupsky suggests determining a stability of the first level of the stockpile as doing so would avoid structural failure of the heap. Lang teaches determining in-situ element concentrations (where a difference in concentration in level in the stockpile over a duration of time comprises an amount of metal removed in the first level) [0074], where as the amount of flow of irrigation solution intrinsically correlates with the amount of metal the irrigation solution removes from the heap, and stability of the heap (e.g., the heap not experiencing structural failure) is necessary to remove metal, Lang determines an amount of metal removed in the first level based on the irrigation flows being reduced and the stability of the first level of the stockpile.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Van Staden does not disclose determining that the material in a second level of the stockpile has a faster path to pregnant leach solution during the leaching operations, wherein the second level of the stockpile is above the compacted material in the first level of the stockpile (see pg. 8 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lang is taken in view of Van Staden, where Lang teaches the stockpile to have a second level above the first level of the stockpile (Lang: [0010, 0075]), while Van Staden as noted by Applicant teaches compaction of the ore particle bed results in an increase in spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels (Abstract, Fig. 6), where ore compaction occurs under the pressure of its own weight (pg. 14 right column paragraph 5). Therefore, as compaction and in turn increased spacing and tortuosity of solution flow channels would be more prevalent at lower levels of the heap, Van Staden suggests that the second level which is above the first layer would be determined to have a faster flow path as faster flow paths in upper levels is intrinsic to ore heaps.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Van Staden does not disclose adjusting the leaching operations in the second level such that more metal is removed in the second level based on the lower percentage of the compacted material in the second level of the stockpile (see pg. 8 of remarks), the Examiner notes such a teaching is provided by Lang in view of Slupsky, while Van Staden is not relied upon to teach such a limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights