DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendments
2. Applicant’s response dated 31 December 2025 is acknowledged and is considered fully responsive. The applicant has cancelled Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. The applicant has added new Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. None of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 were amended in the applicant’s response.
3. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jassby et al.
Jassby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0224450 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an electrically conductive reverse osmosis membrane (title).
Regarding Claim 29, Jassby et al. discloses a conductive membrane (title and abstract) comprising: a porous base layer film (i.e.: porous membrane in ¶43, ¶4-6, abstract) comprising first polymer film (e.g.: cellulose acetates, cellulose nitrates, regenerated celluloses, polysulfones, polyethersulfones, polyamide, PVDF among others in ¶43); a porous conductive layer film comprises a second polymer film (e.g.: polyamide), graphene (¶36) and carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes (¶4-6, ¶31, and ¶34); wherein the carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes are dispersed in the second polymer film (i.e.: polyamide matrix) to form a conductive support network; a porous intermediate layer film (area where the CNT/graphene-polyamide matrix is deposited onto the porous base layer, such as polysulfone) sandwiched between the porous base layer film (polysulfone) and the porous conductive layer film (polyamide-CNT/graphene); wherein material of the intermediate layer film comprises material of the first polymer film (e.g. polysulfone), material of the second polymer film material (e.g.: polyamide), and graphene and carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes (¶29, ¶40, and ¶43).
Regarding Claim 30, Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 29, wherein, material of the conductive membrane consists of material of the first polymer film (e.g.: polysulfone in ¶43), material of the second polymer film material (e.g. polyamide ¶43 and ¶54), and graphene (¶36) and carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes(¶34 and ¶54 ) and further detailed in ¶4-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 9, 23, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al.
Huang et al. (CN104941461 B – previously presented) is directed toward the nanofiltration membrane for seawater desalination and preparation method thereof (title). Jassby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0224450 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an electrically conductive reverse osmosis membrane (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. discloses a membrane for desalination having a three-layered structure including a polysulfone porous support layer (i.e.: the base layer membrane introduced in ¶8), an ultrathin porous transition layer (i.e.: the intermediate transition layer membrane), and the polyamide cross-linked network desalination layer deposited in that sequence layer by layer as further exemplified in Ex. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (¶44-71). Some of the holes (openings of the pores) disclosed in Huang et al. are necessarily in communication with each other since the membrane is used for water desalination and material (water) must be conveyed through the membrane. However, Huang et al. does not disclose the top layer is electrically conductive.
Jassby et al. is directed toward an electrically conductive membrane for water treatment (title and abstract). Jassby et al. discloses the incorporation of functionalized nanocarbon (e.g.: CNT and graphene in ¶4-6, ¶31, ¶34, and ¶36) into a polyamide matrix deposited onto a polysulfone polymer layer/support (abstract and ¶4-6). The inclusion of functionalized nanocarbon materials improves the robustness of the membrane for water treatment with respect to contamination and biofouling (¶8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyamide top layer of Huang et al. with the composite nanocarbon/polyamide composite as taught by Jassby et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a membrane with improved resistance to chemical or biofouling.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 1, wherein a thickness of the conductive layer (400 nm according to ¶70-71 in Jassby et al.) is less than a thickness of the base layer film (ranges from 20 to 80 microns in examples 1-4 in Huang et al.).
Regarding Claim 23, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 1, wherein, the base layer film comprises a first polymer film (polysulfone in Huang et al. or Jassby et al.), the conductive layer film comprises a second polymer film (i.e.: polyamide from Jassby et al. and Huang et al.) and conductive modifier dispersed (i.e.: CNT and graphene in Jassby et al.) in the second polymer film, and material of the intermediate layer film comprises material of the first polymer film, material of the conductive modifier, and material of the second polymer film material as further explained in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 24, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 23, wherein the membrane only comprises material of the first polymer layer (i.e.: polysulfone from Huang et al. and Jassby et al.), a material of the conductive modifier (i.e.: CNT and graphene from Jassby et al.), and material of the second polymer film (i.e.: polyamide) as further explained in Claim 1 and Claim 23 above.
Claim 27 which depends from Claim 1 and describes a method of making the conductive membrane of Claim 1 as written is a product-by-process claim. MPEP § 2113 I states ‘"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)’. The claimed process of Claim 27 yields a three layers conductive membrane as is described by the combination of Huang et al. and Jassby et al. Therefore , the product-by-process of Claim 27 is rendered obvious.
Claim 28 which depends from Claim 27 and describes a method of making the conductive membrane of Claims 1 and 27 as written is a product-by-process claim. MPEP § 2113 I states ‘"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)’. The claimed process of Claim 28 yields a three layers conductive membrane as is described by the combination of Huang et al. and Jassby et al. Therefore, the product-by-process of Claim 28 is rendered obvious.
9. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Chen et al.
Huang et al. (CN104941461 B – previously presented) is directed toward the nanofiltration membrane for seawater desalination and preparation method thereof (title). Jassby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0224450 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an electrically conductive reverse osmosis membrane (title). Chen et al. (CN106552514A – previously presented) is directed toward a composite nanofiltration membrane (title).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang et al. and Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 1, wherein the base layer film comprises the first polymer film material (i.e.: polysulfone from Huang et al. or Jassby et al.), the conductive layer film comprises a second polymer film material (i.e.: polyamide from Huang et al. or Jassby et al.) and a modified conductive material (i.e.: functionalized graphene and CNT in Huang et al. ¶4-6, ¶31, ¶34, and ¶36). The combination of Huang et al. and Jassby et al. disclose that the intermediate layer is only polysulfone, i.e.: the first polymer (Ex. 1-4 of Huang et al.), but does not comprise the second polymer film material (i.e.: polyamide) nor the modified conductive material.
Chen et al. discloses a nanofiltration composite based on graphene or CNT incorporation into polymeric materials having three-layer structure (¶41). The structure has a non-woven fabric support layer (i.e.: a porous base layer), a dense intermediate layer (i.e.: porous intermediate layer), and a dense separation layer (a porous conductive layer) that together improve the water flux through the filtration system (¶41). Chen et. further discloses the polymers can be selected from polysulfone (e.g.: polysulfone, sulfonated polysulfone, polyethersulfone or sulfonated polyethersulfone) and polyamide among others (¶31).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate layer disclosed by the combination of Huang et al. and Jassby et al. by including the modified conductive material (e.g.: graphene, CNT, or graphene oxide) and second polymer film material (i.e.: polyamide) of Chen et al. with the reasonable expectation for forming a membrane that has improved flux as per Chen et al (¶41). Moreover, the presence of both polymer film materials present in the intermediate layer would reasonably be expected to improve the adhesion between the base layer film and the conductive layer film. Lastly, the presence of the modified conductive species in intermediate layer would reasonably be expected to improve conductivity throughout the entire membrane thickness thereby improving the ability of the membrane to sequester charged species found in the water stream.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang et al. and Jassby et al. further in view of Chen et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 2, wherein the conductive modified material is capable of being graphene (¶36 of Huang et al.) and carboxylated MWCNT (¶4-6, ¶31 and ¶34 of Huang et al.).
The limitation of Claim 4 is merely further limiting an optional limitation of Claim 2, which stands rejected, as above, since Claim 4 only teaches a different option for the first and second polymer film. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected in light of Huang et al., Jassby et al. and Chen et al.
Regarding Claim 5, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane of Claim 1 and discloses numerous pore-forming agents in ¶24 that directly impact the structure and shape of the pores formed in the membrane during the non-solvent treatment. However, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. is silent on the specific shape of the holes in the composite membrane (i.e.: finger-like or spongy).
Chen et al. discloses a nanofiltration composite based on graphene or CNT incorporation into polymeric materials having three-layer structure (¶41). The structure has a non-woven fabric support layer (i.e.: a porous base layer), a dense intermediate layer (i.e.: porous intermediate layer), and a dense separation layer (a porous conductive layer) that together improve the water flux through the filtration system (¶41). Chen et. further discloses the polymers can be selected from polysulfone (e.g.: polysulfone, sulfonated polysulfone, polyethersulfone or sulfonated polyethersulfone) and polyamide among others (¶31). Chen additionally indicates that the cross-sectional pore structure of the ultra-thin intermediate support layer is a symmetrical or asymmetrical sponge-like pore structure or a finger-like pore structure or a mixed pore structure (¶30) which is controlled by pore-forming agents.
Therefore, it would be obvious to prepare the conductive membrane my modifying the process disclosed by the combination of Huang et al. and Jassby et al. with the teachings of Chen et al. pertaining to the structure of the polymer films by selection of a pore-forming agent with the reasonable expectation of forming a conductive membrane with enhanced water flux and resistance to fouling (Chen et al. in ¶41).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang et al. and Jassby et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 5, but does not indicate the relative pore diameter across between different layers. The combination of references indicates that the pore-forming agent directs the width of the pores that are formed during the non-solvent treatment step (Huang et al. in ¶24 and Chen et al. in ¶30). Therefore, the pore-forming agent is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the pore-forming agent, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation (i.e.: the size of the holes decrease from the conductive layer to the intermediate layer to the base layer). One would have been motivated to do so in order to form a membrane that has the highest selectivity for removing pollutant or charges species at the conductive top layer since the pores are smaller and allow for the highest flux of filtered water through the base layer of the material given the larger diameter holes.
Regarding Claim 7, Huang et al. and Jassby et al. in view of Chen et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 6, but does not disclose the exact diameter of the holes. The combination of references indicates that the pore-forming agent directs the width of the pores that are formed during the non-solvent treatment step (Huang et al. in ¶24 and Chen et al. in ¶30). Therefore, the pore-forming agent is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the pore-forming agent, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation (i.e.: the diameter and length of the finger shaped, spongey holes, or columnar holes). One would have been motivated to do so in order to form a membrane that has the highest selectivity for removing pollutant or charges species at the conductive top layer since the pores are smaller and allow for the highest flux of filtered water through the base layer of the material given the larger diameter holes.
Regarding Claim 21 , the combination of Huang et al., Jassby et al., and Chen et al. disclose the conductive membrane of Claim 2, wherein the intermediate layer film only comprises the first layer polymer material (polysulfone from Huang et al. or Jassby et al.), the conductive modified material (e.g.: graphene, CNT, or graphene oxide from Huang et al.), and the second polymer film material (i.e.: polyamide from Chen at al.) as explained above in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 22 , the combination of Huang et al., Jassby et al., and Chen et al. disclose the conductive membrane of Claim 2, wherein the conductive membrane consists of the first polymer film material (polysulfone from Huang et al. or Jassby et al.), the conductive modified material (e.g.: graphene, CNT, or graphene oxide from Huang et al.), and the second polymer film material (i.e.: polyamide from Chen at al.) as explained above in Claim 2.
10. Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Wiesner et al.
Huang et al. (CN104941461 B – previously presented) is directed toward the nanofiltration membrane for seawater desalination and preparation method thereof (title). Jassby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0224450 A1) is directed toward an electrically conductive reverse osmosis membrane (title). Chen et al. (CN106552514A – previously presented) is directed toward a composite nanofiltration membrane (title). Wiesner et al. (“Optimizing caron nanotube-reinforced polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes through carboxylic acid functionalization,” J. Membrane Sci. 2013, -447-, 395-402) is directed toward carbon additives to polysulfone UF membranes (pg. 395: title).
Regarding Claim 25, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. discloses the conductive membrane according to Claim 1, wherein, material of the conductive membrane consists of a first polymer material, a second polymer material, and conductive modified material; the first polymer material is polyethersulfone (PES) and the conductive modified material comprises graphene and carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes as explained above in Claim 1. However, the second polymer layer of Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. is polyamide, not one of the limitations of Claim 25 (i.e.: polyethersulfone (PES), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polysulfone (PSF), or cellulose acetate (CA)).
Wiesner is directed toward ultrafiltration membranes so it is analogous art to Huang et al. and Jassby et al. Wiesner et al. is study directed at understanding the effect of doping level of functionalized CNT (i.e.: conductive modified material of the instant application) as per the abstract on pg. 395 and pg. 397 in Table 1. The conductive modified material is a carboxylated MWCNT and is easily dispersed into the polysulfone matrix (pg. 397: 3.1.2. CNT dispersion of PSf-PVP membranes). Generally, Wiesner et al. found that the more effectively the CNT was dispersed into the polymer matrix, the more the improvement in properties could be realized. Wiesner et al. indicated that lower levels of carboxylation improved the mechanical strength and reduced the loss of CNT from the membrane, whereas higher levels of carboxylation improved hydrophilicity and water permeation (pg. 401: 4.3. Effect of carboxylation on membrane properties). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would balance the desired properties based on the degree of carboxylation depending on the required properties of the filtration membrane.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive membrane of Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. by replacing polyamide with polysulfone as taught by Wiesner et al. for the second polymer layer with the reasonable expectation of forming a conductive membrane with improved surface hydrophilicity and membrane permeability (Wiesner on pg. 395 in the abstract). Moreover, polysulfone and polyamide are both common polymers used in ultra and microfiltration so interchanging both materials is an obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 26, Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. and Wiesner et al. discloses the conductive membrane of Claim 25, wherein the first polymer and the second polymer material are polysulfone (i.e.: the same material as required by the limitation of Claim 26).
11. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., Jassby et al., and Chen et al. as applied to Claim 5 above and further in view of Wu et al.
Huang et al. (CN104941461 B – previously presented) is directed toward the nanofiltration membrane for seawater desalination and preparation method thereof (title). Jassby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0224450 A1) is directed toward an electrically conductive reverse osmosis membrane (title). Chen et al. (CN106552514A – previously presented) is directed toward a composite nanofiltration membrane (title). Wu et al. (“Improved filtration performance and antifouling properties of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane by blending with carboxylic acid functionalized polysulfone,” RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 7774-7784 – previously presented) is directed toward ultrafiltration membrane (pg. 7774: title).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang et al. and Jassby et al., and Chen et al. disclose the conductive membrane of Claim 5, but the combination is silent on the plurality of pore structures of the base layer relative to the finger-shaped holes.
Wu et al. discloses a modified polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane having improved performance properties (pg. 7774: title and abstract). The improved properties disclosed by Wu et al. by optimization of the level modified polysulfone in the polyethersulfone base layer (pg. 7776: TABLE 1). Wu et al. depicts SEM images of the composition in TABLE 1 in Fig. 3 on pg. 7779, where more finger-shaped holes than pore structures can be identified. In particular, M1, M2, and M3 compositions satisfy the limitation of Claim 8. Wu et al. hypothesizes that the hydrophilicity of the membrane is increased with the inclusion of the carboxylic acid modified polysulfone into the polyethersulfone (pg. 7780 and TABLE 4: contact angle measurements).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base layer polymer film material (i.e.: polysulfone) of Huang et al. and Jassby et al., and Chen et al. with the composite polyethersulfone and carboxylic acid functionalized polysulfone with the reasonable expectation of forming a conductive membrane with enhanced resistance to fouling and more robust filtration performance resulting from increased porosity and hydrophilicity (We et al. on pg. 7774: abstract and pg. 7783: 4. Conclusion).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang et al. and Jassby et al., and Chen et al. in view of Wu et al. disclose the conductive membrane according to Claim 8, wherein the thickness of the conductive layer film is less than or equal to 100 microns and the thickness of the base layer ranges from 100 microns to 250 microns with support from Jassby et al. for the thickness of the conductive layer of ~0.5 microns (¶70-71 in Jassby et al.) and the thickness of the base layer from Huang et al. 80 microns in Ex. 2 (¶55-63). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses a range or example that overlaps with the claimed range (i.e.: conductive layer thickness) or is merely close to the claimed range (i.e.: base layer thickness). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as being obvious in view of Huang et al. and Jassby et al. is maintained as explained below.
13. The applicant’s arguments on pg. 6-7 pertaining to the Claim 1 is made using a method different than described in the disclosure of the instant application is not convincing since Claim 1 is directed toward a conductive membrane without specification as to the method of making. Given the broad claim limitations of the three layered structure (i.e.: first polymer layer, an intermediate layer, and the second polymer layer), the combination of Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. results in a similar structure. The deposition of the CNT and/or the CNT-polyamide on top of the porous substrate (i.e.: polysulfone) of Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. would certainly results in some degree of intermixing or transitional composition (i.e. an intermediate layer having some fraction of the first polymer layer, the second polymer layer, and the modified conductive layer. The applicant could potentially rebut the prima facie case of obviousness by specifying other structural features of the conductive membrane, e.g., the thickness of the intermediate layer, the concentration of the conductive modified material in the intermediate layer/conductive membrane, the degree of polymer (i.e. first polymer and second polymer mixing) in the intermediate layer, etc.
14. The reasons for the rejection of new Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are explained in detail in the above office action.
15. Pertaining to Claim 27, which the applicant has identified as a product-by-process claim on pg. 8 of their response, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The product-by-process claim as laid out by the applicant results in a in a three-layered structure with a first layer polymer, a second layer polymer with a conductive modified material, and an intermediate layer comprised of a both polymers + conductive modified material (i.e.: a transition area). The applicant would need to point to other structural parameters of the conductive membrane, e.g., the thickness of the intermediate layer, the concentration of the conductive modified material, or the degree of polymer (i.e. first polymer and second polymer mixing) in the intermediate layer, etc. Absent more specific parameters resulting from the product-by-process claim limitations, the applicant has not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness taught by the conductive membrane described by the combination of Huang et al. in view of Jassby et al. and Chen et al.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights