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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, the term “wherein” should read “wherein:” (please utilize a colon).
As to claim 1, the term “and at least one second component,” should read “at least one second component;” (please utilize a semi-colon).
As to claim 1, the term “each other.” should read “each other;” (please utilize a semi-colon).
As to claim 1, the term “Ru, or Co,” should read “Ru, or Co;” (please utilize a semi-colon).
As to claim 13, the term “to about 300°C about 40°C to about 300°C” should read as “to about 300°C, about 40°C to about 300°C” (please utilize a comma).
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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.
As to claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-17 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
As to claim 1, the term “close contact” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close contact” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner acknowledges that examples are provided in the specification received 11/10/2022, pg. 5, ln. 29-32. However, examples do not define the term, thereby failing to defining the scope of the claimed invention. The term “there is basically no gap between the two components” fails to define the scope of the claimed invention, because it is not clear what is definitively meant by “basically.” For examination purposes, the term “close contact” is interpreted as “a distance between the two components is equal to or less than one tenth of length, width, or height of the nanostructure.”
Claims 2-17 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
As to claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 14-15 are rejected for being dependent on claim 2.
As to claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 9, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is interpreted to be “within a tenth of”.
As to claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 10, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is interpreted to be “within a tenth of”.
As to claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 13, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is interpreted to be “within a tenth of”.
As to claim 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claim 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 6-7, 9-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan, Jili, et al. "Efficient Photocatalytic Nitrogen Fixation: Enhanced Polarization, Activation, and Cleavage by Asymmetrical Electron Donation to N≡N Bond." Advanced Functional Materials 30.4 (2020): 1906983 (hereinafter, Jili).
As to claim 1, Jili teaches to a method for producing ammonia by energy irradiation, comprising:
contacting a nanostructure catalyst with at least one nitrogen-containing source and at least one hydrogen-containing source (Jili, pg. 1, teaches to contacting a nanostructure catalyst with at least one nitrogen-containing source and at least one hydrogen-containing source, as Jili teaches to nitrogen fixation involving nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas for producing ammonia using a bimetallic center of Ru-Co; Jili, pg. 2, teaches that the size of nanoparticles in Ru-Vs-CoS/CN increases to 2-8 nm, the nanoparticles are nanostructure photocatalysts), and
irradiating the nanostructure catalyst, and the nitrogen-containing source and the hydrogen-containing source with energy, to produce ammonia (Jili, pg. 4, Fig. 4, teaches to irradiating the nanostructure catalyst, and the nitrogen-containing source and the hydrogen-containing source with energy to produce ammonia, as Jili teaches to photocatalytic nitrogen fixation),
wherein the nanostructure catalyst comprises at least one first component and at least one second component (Jili, pg. 2, teaches to wherein the nanostructure catalyst comprises at least one first component and at least one second component, as Jili teaches to Ru-Vs-CoS/CN photocatalyst nanostructures), and
a distance between the first component and the second component is 200 nm or less, preferably 100 nm or less, and most preferably that the first component and the second component are in close contact with each other (Jili, pg. 3, Figs. 1 and 3, teaches to a distance between the first component and the second component is 200 nm or less, preferably 100 nm or less, and most preferably that the first component and the second component are in close contact with each other, as Jili teaches to an instance of where CoS and Ru atoms overlap by 0.5 nm).
the first component is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, Ru and alloys of two or more chemical elements thereof, and preferably Ru, or Co (Jili, pg. 7, teaches to the first component is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, Ru and alloys of two or more chemical elements thereof, and preferably Ru, or Co, as Jili teaches to Ru-Vs-CoS/CN photocatalyst nanostructures),
the second component is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ru, Rh, La, Ce, Ni, Mo, Bi V, C and oxides, sulfides, carbides, hydroxides, chlorides, carbonates and bicarbonates thereof, and preferably Co (Jili, pg. 7, teaches to the second component is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ru, Rh, La, Ce, Ni, Mo, Bi V, C and oxides, sulfides, carbides, hydroxides, chlorides, carbonates and bicarbonates thereof, and preferably Co, as Jili teaches to Ru-Vs-CoS/CN photocatalyst nanostructures).
As to claim 2, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the energy irradiation is at least one selected from light irradiation and heat irradiation, and preferably light irradiation (Jili, pg. 4, teaches to wherein the energy irradiation is at least one selected from light irradiation and heat irradiation, as Jili teaches to light irradiation by using AM1.5G sunlight).
As to claim 3, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure catalyst comprises one chemical element as both the first component and the second component, or comprise two or more chemical elements, alloys, or compounds each as the first component or the second component (Jili, pg. 7, teaches to wherein the nanostructure catalyst comprises one chemical element as both the first component and the second component, or comprise two or more chemical elements, alloys, or compounds each as the first component or the second component, as Jili teaches to Ru-Vs-CoS/CN as the nanostructure catalyst).
As to claim 4, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure catalyst is produced by physically mixing the at least one first component and the at least one second component (Jili, pg. 7, teaches to wherein the nanostructure catalyst is produced by physical mixing the at least one first component and the at least one second component, as Jili teaches to deposition of Ru onto Vs-CoS/CN).
As to claim 6, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure catalyst comprises Co (Jili, pg. 2, teaches to wherein the nanostructure catalyst comprises Co, as Jili teaches to Ru-Vs-CoS/CN photocatalyst nanostructures).
As to claim 7, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure catalyst is a Co catalyst, or a Co-Ru catalyst (Jili, pg. 7, teaches to wherein the nanostructure catalyst is a Co catalyst, or a Co-Ru catalyst, as Jili teaches to Ru-Vs-CoS/CN photocatalyst nanostructures).
As to claim 9, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure is about 1 nm to about 1000 nm, preferably about 70 nm to about 1000 nm, about 100 nm to about 800 nm, about 200 nm to 500 nm in at least one dimension of length, width, and height (Jili, pg. 2, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the nanostructure is about 1nm to about 1000 nm, preferably about 70 nm to about 1000 nm, about 100 nm to about 800 nm, about 200 nm to 500 nm in at least one dimension of length, width, and height, as Jili teaches to the size of nanoparticles increases to 2-8 nm).
As to claim 10, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure each independently is about 1nm to about 3000 nm in length, width or height, preferably is about 100 nm to about 3000 nm, about 500 nm to about 2500 nm, or about 1000 nm to about 2000 nm in length, and/or about 1nm to about 1000 nm, about 70 nm to about 1000 nm, about 100 nm to about 800 nm, or about 200 nm to about 500 nm in width or height, or the nanostructure each independently has an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 20, and preferably an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 10, or about 2 to about 8 (Jili, pg. 2, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the nanostructure each independently is about 1nm to about 3000 nm in length, width or height, preferably is about 100 nm to about 3000 nm, about 500 nm to about 2500 nm, or about 1000 nm to about 2000 nm in length, and/or about 1nm to about 1000 nm, about 70 nm to about 1000 nm, about 100 nm to about 800 nm, or about 200 nm to about 500 nm in width or height, or the nanostructure each independently has an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 20, and preferably an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 10, or about 2 to about 8, as Jili teaches to the size of nanoparticles increases to 2-8 nm).
As to claim 11, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure each independently has a shape of spherical, spike, flake, needle, grass, cylindrical, polyhedral, 3D cone, cuboidal, sheet, hemispherical, irregular 3D shape, porous structure or any combinations thereof (Jili, Figs. 1 and 3, teaches to wherein the nanostructure each independently has a shape of spherical, spike, flake, needle, grass, cylindrical, polyhedral, 3D cone, cuboidal, sheet, hemispherical, irregular 3D shape, porous structure or any combinations thereof, as Jili teaches to nanostructure having combinations of spherical and 3D shape).
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the instant claim is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed structure and a structure having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art structure, the claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the prior art structure. In addition, the configuration/shape of the claimed structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Please see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
As to claim 12, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of the nanostructures are arranged in a patterned configuration (Jili, pg. 1, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein a plurality of the nanostructures are arranged in a patterned configuration, as Jili teaches to HRTEM image of Ru(001)/CoS(101) interface), and preferably in a plurality of layers, on a substrate, or a plurality of the nanostructure are randomly dispersed in a medium (Jili, pg. 4, Fig. S15, teaches to and preferably in a plurality of layers, on a substrate, or a plurality of the nanostructure are randomly dispersed in a medium, as Jili teaches to Ru/CoSx nanoparticles on the CN remained a good dispersity, thereby the Ru-Vs-CoS/CN catalyst presents one of the best performances of photocatalytic N 2 fixation reported to date).
As to claim 13, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the energy irradiation allows the reaction progresses at a temperature between about 20°C to about 300°C, preferably about 30°C to about 300°C about 40°C to about 300°C, about /0°C to about 300°C, about 100°C to about 280°C, about 110°C to about 280°C, about 120°C to about 270°C (Jili, pg. 7., teaches to wherein the energy irradiation allows the reaction progresses at a temperature between about 20°C to about 300°C, preferably about 30°C to about 300°C about 40°C to about 300°C, about /0°C to about 300°C, about 100°C to about 280°C, about 110°C to about 280°C, about 120°C to about 270°C, as Jili teaches to the photocatalytic N2 fixation experiments were carried out at room temperature; room temperature as a standard established as between 20°C - 25°C).
As to claim 14, Jili teaches to the method of claim 2, wherein the reaction is initiated by means of light irradiation or heat irradiation, and the reaction is continued to progress by means of light irradiation or heat irradiation, wherein a power of the light irradiation is 200-1500 W/m2, preferably 200-1000 W/m2, and most preferably 500-1000 W/m2 (Jili, pg. 4, teaches to wherein the reaction is initiated by means of irradiation or heat irradiation, and the reaction is continued to progress by means of light irradiation or heat irradiation, wherein a power of the light irradiation is 200-1500 W/m2, preferably 200-100 W/m2, and most preferably 500-1000 W/m2, as Jili teaches to light irradiation by using AM1.5G sunlight; irradiance of AM1.5G is established to be 1000 W/m2).
As to claim 16, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nitrogen-containing source is selected from a group of consisting of N2, air, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, nitro compounds and any combination thereof, or air, industrial flue gas, exhausts or emissions comprising one or more of these nitrogen-containing sources, and preferably N2 (Jili, pg. 4, teaches to wherein the nitrogen-containing source is selected from a group of consisting of N2, air, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, nitro compounds and any combinations thereof, or air, industrial flue gas, exhausts or emissions comprising one or more of these nitrogen-containing sources, and preferably N2, as Jili teaches to nitrogen fixation reaction using N2 and H2 in production of ammonia).
As to claim 17, Jili teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen-containing source is selected from a group of water, H2, C1-4 hydrocarbons and any combinations thereof, or air, industrial flue gas, exhausts or emissions comprising one or more of these hydrogen-containing sources, and preferably water (Jili, pg. 4, teaches to wherein the hydrogen-containing source is selected from a group of water, H2, C1-4 hydrocarbons and any combinations thereof, or air, industrial flue gas, exhausts or emissions comprising one or more of these hydrogen-containing sources, and preferably water, as Jili teaches to nitrogen fixation reaction using N2 and H2 in production of ammonia; Jili, pg. 1, teaches to using water, as Jili teaches that photocatalytic N2 reduction reaction in water is an attractive approach for NH3 synthesis under ambient conditions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, Jili, et al. "Efficient Photocatalytic Nitrogen Fixation: Enhanced Polarization, Activation, and Cleavage by Asymmetrical Electron Donation to N≡N Bond." Advanced Functional Materials 30.4 (2020): 1906983 (hereinafter, Jili), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of R. Douglas Carpenter of US 2009/0117014 A1 (hereinafter, Carpenter).
As to claim 5, Jili teaches wherein the nanostructure catalyst provides the at least one first component and the at least one second component in one nanostructure.
In an analogous art, Carpenter teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure catalyst provides the at least one first component and the at least one second component in one nanostructure (Carpenter, paragraph [0013]).
Both Jili and Carpenter relate to XX. Jili does not explicitly teach an alloy. Jili does teach to a bimetallic catalyst for ammonia synthesis in nitrogen fixation. Carpenter, paragraphs [0012]-[0013], teaches to nitrogen fixation using nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas using nano-sized metal catalyst particles as alloys comprising cobalt and ruthenium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jili with the alloy of Carpenter for improved ammonia production by minimizing sintering of adjacent particles.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, Jili, et al. "Efficient Photocatalytic Nitrogen Fixation: Enhanced Polarization, Activation, and Cleavage by Asymmetrical Electron Donation to N≡N Bond." Advanced Functional Materials 30.4 (2020): 1906983 (hereinafter, Jili), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and in further view of Huiying Zhang of CN 110911657 A (hereinafter, Zhang).
As to claim 8, Jili does not explicitly teach wherein a mole ratio of Co to Ru in the Co-Ru catalyst is 10:1 to 2000:1, preferably 100:1 to 1200:1, more preferably 120:1 to 600:1, and most preferably 150:1 to 300:1.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches to wherein a mole ratio of Co to Ru in the Co-Ru catalyst is 10:1 to 2000:1, preferably 100:1 to 1200:1, more preferably 120:1 to 600:1, ad most preferably 150:1 to 300:1 (Zhang paragraph [0011], teaches to wherein a mole ratio of Co to Ru in the Co-Ru catalyst is 10:1 to 2000:1, preferably 100:1 to 1200:1, more preferably 120:1 to 600:1, and most preferably 150:1 to 300:1, as Zhang teaches the molar ratio of cobalt ion and ruthenium ion in the mixed solution as 10:1).
Further, the Office notes that the recited method of the instant claim can be reached by one of ordinary skill in the art by simply choosing a different ratio of the taught bimetallic catalyst of Jili in light of Zhang. A particular parameter can be recognized as 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 (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, Jili, et al. "Efficient Photocatalytic Nitrogen Fixation: Enhanced Polarization, Activation, and Cleavage by Asymmetrical Electron Donation to N≡N Bond." Advanced Functional Materials 30.4 (2020): 1906983 (hereinafter, Jili), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Cong Wang of US 2019/0046966 A1 (hereinafter, Wang).
As to claim 15, Jili teaches does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature of the nanostructure catalyst, the nitrogen-containing source and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light irradiation, and preferably that the light irradiation is the sole source for raising the temperature.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches to wherein the temperature of the nanostructure catalyst, the nitrogen-containing source and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light irradiation, and preferably that the light irradiation is the sole source for raising the temperature (Wang, paragraph [0018], teaches to wherein the temperature of the nanostructure catalyst, the nitrogen-containing source and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light irradiation, and preferably that the light irradiation is the sole source for raising the temperature, as Wang teaches that the light irradiation raises the temperature of the plasmonic nanoparticle catalyst and the reactants).
Both Jili and Wang relate to plasmonic nanoparticle catalyst (Wang, paragraph [0004]). Jili does not explicitly teach that the light irradiation raises the temperature. Jili does teach to using plasmonic nanoparticle catalyst comprising Co and Ru. Wang teaches using plasmonic nanoparticle catalyst comprising Co and Ru, wherein the catalyst and the reactants are irradiated for the raised temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jili with the light irradiation of Wang for utilizing plasmonic nanoparticle catalysts in increasing solar-to-chemical efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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.
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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794