DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE APPLICATION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ Amendments and Remarks, filed 9 March 2023, in the matter of Application No. 18/025,606. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 3, 5-8, 10, and 13-15 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
Thus, claims 1-19 represent all claims currently under consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2021/033034, filed on 8 September 2021, and in Application No. 18/025,606, filed on 9 March 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant claims foreign priority to Application No. JP2020-153286, filed on 11 September 2020, and Application No. JP2021-001398, filed on 7 January 2021.
Domestic Priority data as claimed by Applicant:
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/033034 (09/08/2021)
Foreign Applications:
JAPAN 2020-153286 (09/11/2020)
JAPAN 2021-001398 (01/07/2021)
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements submitted on 9 March 2023, 5 June 2023, 30 November 2023, 16 July 2024, 11 November 2024, and 1 May 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Potential Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 4-7 be found allowable, claims 12-15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3 describe an apparatus and are therefore being interpreted according to MPEP § 2114.
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 10-11 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 10 recites the phrase “…the compound-containing solution…” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that correcting any suspected typographical error(s) regarding the claim language would ameliorate this claim rejection. For examination purposes, “…the compound-containing solution…” will be read as “…a compound-containing solution…”
Regarding claim 11, this dependent claim does not resolve the indefiniteness of claim 10 described above.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammon et al. (US 2004/0256319 A1; IDS of 03-09-2023; hereinafter “Hammon”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 12, Hammon teaches an apparatus and method for performing the purifying separation of crystals out of their suspension in a mother liquor by means of a washing column (Title; Abstract, claims 1 and 4; Figures 2 and 5). The method of Hammon comprises purifying and separating acrylic acid crystals from a mother liquor by supplying a slurry containing crude acrylic acid crystals, obtained from the fractional condensation of a product gas mixture of a two-stage heterogeneously catalyzed gas phase partial oxidation of propene, to a hydraulic washing column (paragraphs [0081]-[0087], [0122]-[0129], and [0134]-[0138]; Examples 1 and 2; Figure 5). Hammon accomplishes the method for purifying and producing pure acrylic acid using an apparatus as depicted in Figure 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
747
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The apparatus of Hammon comprises a hydraulic washing column (7), wherein a crystal suspension (1) of crude acrylic acid material is fed into the top of the washing column via a suspension pump (8), and the bottom of the column is connected to a melt circuit (12), wherein a crystal-containing slurry can exit the washing column into the melt circuit (12), through a heat transferer (9) for melting the crystals, and further circulation via pump (11) past a regulating valve (10) that can be used to adjust the mass ratio of washing melt to be returned to the washing column to the pure acrylic acid product takeoff; in addition, the washing column (7) contains drainage pipes (14) mounted at the bottom of the fluid register which are connected to the interior (23) and provided with at least one conventional filter (15) each at a defined height, through which the mother liquor is removed from the washing column (paragraphs [0081]-[0121] and [0106], Figure 5). In addition, the method of Hammon comprises step for supplying the slurry comprising acrylic acid crystals to the hydraulic washing column (i.e., (1) in Figure 5); a step for retrieving a crystal-containing circulating slurry from the hydraulic washing column, and melting the crystals contained in the retrieved circulating slurry (i.e., (9) in Figure 5); a step for returning to the hydraulic washing column, part of a circulating liquid containing the melt liquid obtained in the above melting step (i.e., (12) in Figure 5); and a step for filtering the slurry comprising crystals within the hydraulic washing column, and retrieving the mother liquor using a pipe connected to the filter (i.e., (15) and (2) in Figure 5) (paragraphs [0081]-[0087], Figure 5), . Thus, Harmon teaches an apparatus and a method for producing and purifying acrylic acid in a manner consistent with instant claims 1, 4, and 12.
Harmon fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between a lower end of the filter and an average bottom surface level of the hydraulic wash column is 1000 mm or more, as recited in instant claims 1,4, and 12, but otherwise teaches every other limitation of these claims. In addition, Harmon fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between a lower end of the filter and an average bottom surface level of the hydraulic wash column is 10000 mm or less, as recited in instant claim 2. Instead, Harmon teaches an apparatus comprising a washing column with a cylindrical process chamber with an internal diameter of 263 mm, a length of 1230 mm, and the filter was installed at a pipe length of 970 mm (measured from above) (paragraph [0124], Example 1). Thus, Example 1 of Hammon teaches a distance between a lower end of the filter and an average bottom surface level of the hydraulic wash column of about 260 mm. However, Hammon also teaches that customarily, the diameter of the cylindrical process chamber containing the washing columns will not exceed 3 m, and diameters from 1 m to 2 m are advantageous from a process engineering point of view (paragraph [0043]). The skilled artisan could reasonably apply the teachings of Hammon as a whole to arrive at a proportionally larger apparatus with a cylindrical process chamber with an internal diameter of, for example, 2 m (i.e., 2000 mm), which would also possess a proportional length of 9.35 m, a filter installed at a proportional pipe length of 7.38 m (measured from above), wherein the distance between a lower end of the filter and an average bottom surface level of the hydraulic wash column is about 1.97 M (about 1970 mm), a distance that reads directly on the ranges recited in instant claims 1-2, 4, and 12. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A) states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a larger scale apparatus based on the teachings of Hammon as a whole with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an apparatus and method for producing purified acrylic acid wherein a distance between a lower end of the filter and an average bottom surface level of the hydraulic wash column is 1000 mm or more and 10000 mm or less.
Regarding claim 5 depending from claim 4 and claim 13 depending from claim 12, Hammon fails to explicitly teach wherein a crystal bed below the filter in the hydraulic wash column has a space velocity (l/h) of 1 or higher and 20 or lower. However, Hammon does teach that to ensure stable operation of the hydraulic washing column for the purposes of a defined space-time yield and a constant good purifying effect, it is advantageous to compensate for external interfering factors such as variations in the suspension quantity, changes in the crystal content in the suspension, variation in the crystal size distribution and concentration variations in the feed and/or the mother liquor by regulation of a) the filtration front ((17), Figure 5), b) the specific washing medium quantity ((6), Figure 5), and c) the heat of melting ((9), Figure 5) (paragraphs [0087]-[0095]). In addition, Hammon teaches that the liquid flow imposed by the feed column pressure then ensures compaction of the crystals to a crystal bed (c.f., FIG. 2) and also its conveyance (the hydraulic pressure is customarily from 0.1 to 10 bar, frequently from 1 to 5 bar); the method of Harmon further teaches that in the steady state, the result of this process is a washing front at a defined height of the crystal bed, and the washing front is defined as that location in the process chamber in the washing column where the temperature and concentration gradients are highest (the temperature jumps in the washing front, the temperatures are substantially constant above and below the washing front); the position of the washing front may be adjusted by regulating the transported crystal mass stream and the opposing pure melt stream (paragraphs [0018] and [0026]). Finally, Hammon teaches that within the washing column, a compact crystal bed ((5), Figure 5) forms that includes an area below the filter ((15), Figure 5) in the hydraulic wash column; the crystal bed is transported, by the force resulting from the hydraulic flow pressure drop of the mother liquor, past the filters into the washing zone below the filters; the recycling of a portion of the mother liquor into the column by means of the flow control pump (13) allows the regulation of this transport force; variations of the crystal content in the suspension fed in or changes in the crystal size distribution, which substantially influences the flow pressure drop, may thus be compensated for, and such variations are recognizable by the change in location of the filtration front (17), which may be determined by optical position detectors (18). (paragraph [0082], Figure 5). Thus, Hammon teaches that several parameters can be adjusted and optimized that the skilled artisan would readily recognize as impacting the space velocity of the crystal bed below the filter in the hydraulic wash column, such as regulation of the filtration front, the specific washing medium quantity, the feed column pressure to adjust the position of the washing front, the recycling of a portion of the mother liquor into the column by means of the flow control pump (13) to allow the regulation of transport force, and variations of the crystal content in the suspension fed in or changes in the crystal size distribution, as detailed above. Thus, the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success through means of routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here 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.” Of particular note, the process of Hammon (paragraph [0129, Example 1; paragraph [0138, Example 2) shows that the concentration of acetic acid and furfural impurities in the obtained acrylic acid is lower than the concentration described in Example 3 of the present application (Specification; page 42; Table 1, Example 3). Therefore, the space velocity range as recited in instant claims 5 and 13 do not achieve unexpected technical effects and as with claims 4 and 12, it would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Hammon alone.
Regarding claim 6 depending from claim 4 and claim 14 depending from claim 12, Hammon teaches the preparation of a slurry containing acrylic acid crystals to be fed to the hydraulic washing column, wherein about 24% by weight of crystals are formed, based on the total mass of suspension (paragraphs [0123]-[0124]). Thus, the skilled artisan would understand that the amount of mother liquor necessarily present is about 76% by weight, and therefore the ratio of a weight of the mother liquor to a weight of the crystals in the crystal-containing slurry to be fed to the hydraulic washing column is about 3.17. This value resides within the instantly claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 8 depending from claim 4 and claim 9 depending from claim 8, Hammon teaches the preparation of a slurry by continuous addition of 15 kg/h of water to a crude acrylic acid to increase its water content to 1.7% by weight and it was then fed at a temperature of 19 °C to the suspension crystallizer from Example 1; as the melt proceeded through the crystallizer, it was cooled to 8.4 °C and about 27% by weight of crystals formed, based on the total mass of suspension (paragraph [0135], Example 2). Hammon further teaches wherein the crystals to be purifyingly removed are crystals of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid (claim 2).
Regarding claim 10 depending from claim 4 and claim 11 depending from claim 10, Hammon teaches a step of preparing a crude acrylic acid solution from fractional condensation of a product gas mixture of a two-stage heterogeneously catalyzed gas phase partial oxidation of propene (paragraphs [0122] and [0134], Examples 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16 depending from claim 4, Hammon teaches the preparation of a slurry containing acrylic acid crystals to be fed to the hydraulic washing column, wherein about 24% by weight of crystals are formed, based on the total mass of suspension (paragraphs [0123]-[0124]). This value resides within the instantly claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 17 depending from claim 4, Hammon teaches a crude acrylic acid composition of 96.1% by weight and 0.83% water by weight that is further diluted with water to increase its water content to 2.3% by weight prior to being fed into a suspension crystallizer (paragraph [0123]). Thus, Hammon teaches a mass percentage of acrylic acid in the mother liquor in the crystal-containing slurry to be fed to the hydraulic washing column of about 95% by mass. This value resides within the instantly claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 18 depending from claim 4, Hammon teaches that the acrylic acid crystals removed from the hydraulic washing column are resuspended in a melt circuit which was operated at 14 ºC (melting point of the purifyingly removed crystals); using a heat exchanger, heat was introduced indirectly into the circulated suspension in order to substantially melt the crystals resuspended therein, and the pump used in the melt circuit was a centrifugal pump (1500 rpm), and the position of the washing front in the column was monitored by more than one temperature measurer installed at different axial heights in the washing column and regulated while maintaining the amount of pure product removed from the melt circuit at an appropriate level (paragraph [0125], Example 1). Finally, Hammon teaches that to ensure stable operation of the hydraulic washing column for the purposes of a defined space-time yield and a constant good purifying effect, it is advantageous to compensate for external interfering factors such as variations in the suspension quantity, changes in the crystal content in the suspension, variation in the crystal size distribution and concentration variations in the feed and/or the mother liquor by regulation of a) the filtration front ((17), Figure 5), b) the specific washing medium quantity ((6), Figure 5), and c) the heat of melting ((9), Figure 5) (paragraphs [0087]-[0095]).
Although Hammon fails to explicitly teach a linear velocity of the circulation slurry or the circulation liquid containing the melt is 0.05 to 4 m/s, as recited in the instant claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the teachings of Hammon as a whole that the heat of melting ((9), Figure 5) and the amount of pure product removed from the melt circuit plays a critical role in maintaining stable operation of the apparatus, and that these two parameters (i.e., temperature and volume of compound in the circulation liquid) would directly impact the linear velocity of the circulation slurry or the circulation liquid containing the melt. Thus, the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success through means of routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here 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.” Therefore, as with claim 4, it would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Hammon alone.
Regarding claim 19 depending from claim 4, Hammon teaches that at the lower end of the washing column, the crystals are removed from the crystal bed by means of a rotor blade ( 16) and resuspended in pure product melt which may be overinhibited using p-methoxyphenol (MEHQ) as a polymerization inhibitor. This suspension is conducted within a melt circuit (12) via a heat exchanger (9) which indirectly introduces the heat required to melt the crystals. From about 70 to 80% by weight, in favorable cases (for example in the event of marked recrystallization) even from >80 to 100% by weight, of the molten crystals are removed from the melt circuit as pure product (3) (paragraph [0083] and Figure 5). Thus, the circulation liquid returned in the returning step is in an amount of 0-30% by mass of the melt to serve as a washing liquid for the crystals, and this range overlaps with the range recited in the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claims 3, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammon et al. (US 2004/0256319 A1; IDS of 03-09-2023; hereinafter “Hammon”) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-19 and further in view of Kabu et al. (US 2005/0252557 A1; hereinafter “Kabu”).
Regarding claim 3 depending from claim 1, claim 7 depending from claim 4, and claim 15 depending from claim 12, Hammon teaches a method to produce purified acrylic acid, wherein the process chamber comprising the hydraulic washing column, wherein the bottom of the column is connected to a melt circuit (12), wherein a crystal-containing slurry can exit the washing column into the melt circuit (12), through a heat transferer (9) for melting the crystals, and further circulation via pump (11) past a regulating valve (10) that can be used to adjust the mass ratio of washing melt to be returned to the washing column to the pure acrylic acid product takeoff (paragraphs [0081]-[0121] and [0106], Figure 5).
Hammon fails to explicitly teach a bypass line that connects the discharging line and the return line as recited in instant claim 3, and a step of mixing a portion of the circulation liquid containing the melt obtained in the melting step with the circulation slurry discharged from the hydraulic wash column without returning the portion of the circulation liquid to the hydraulic wash column, as recited in instant claims 7 and 15. However, Hammon does teach that the bottom of the column is connected to a melt circuit (12), wherein a crystal-containing slurry can exit the washing column into the melt circuit (12), through a heat transferer (9) for melting the crystals, and further circulation via pump (11) past a regulating valve (10) that can be used to adjust the mass ratio of washing melt to be returned to the washing column to the pure acrylic acid product takeoff (paragraphs [0083] and [0106]), Figure 5). The skilled artisan would recognize that the action of the circulation pump (11) would perform the function of mixing the circulation liquid and the melt obtained in the melting step, and that the regulating valve (10) would serve to prevent a portion of the circulation liquid containing the melt obtained in the melting step with the circulation slurry discharged from the hydraulic wash column without returning the portion of the circulation liquid to the hydraulic wash column, in a manner consistent with instant claims 7 and 15 and the written description (paragraph [0027] and Fig. 1), which states that the purification apparatus of the present invention may further include a mechanism that controls the amount of the circulation liquid to be returned; this control mechanism may be a valve installed in the return line 24 shown in Fig. 1, or a valve may be installed in the product discharging line 23 that is connected to the product discharging port.
Furthermore, Kabu teaches a method for handling easily polymerizable substances and a device for handling easily polymerizable substances that improve on the handling method of a flow control valve or flow meter provided in a line through which a liquid flows that contains an easily polymerizable substance such as (meth)acrylic acid, (meth)acrylate ester or (meth)acrolein, a bypass line of the flow control valve or flow meter, and a shutoff valve provided in the bypass line (Kabu; Title; paragraph [0001]; claims 1 and 4). Of particular note, Kabu teaches that in order to ensure smooth distribution of liquid containing easily polymerizable substances, it is preferable that the easily polymerizable substance flows through a pipe or other type of line within a predicted retention time; a flow control valve or flow meter is provided at an intermediate location in a line used for distribution of a liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance in order to ensure smooth operation of a production device and so forth; this flow control valve or flow meter may malfunction during the course of use; consequently, the flow of liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance must be temporarily interrupted during repair or replacement of the flow control valve or flow meter; therefore, a shutoff valve is typically provided in a line upstream or downstream from the flow meter or flow control valve in order to stop the flow of liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance; when repairing or replacing the flow control valve or flow meter, the flow control valve or flow meter is repaired or replaced after closing a shutoff valve provided upstream or downstream there from to temporarily interrupt the flow of liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance; in addition, in the case of having a considerable effect on the operation of a production device and so forth when the flow of the liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance is interrupted, a method is typically employed in which a bypass line is provided for the flow control valve or flow meter, and a shutoff valve is provided in this bypass line (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). Of particular note, Kabu teaches that if a liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance retained in a bypass line is renewed by allowing the liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance to flow through the bypass line by intermittently opening and closing a bypass shutoff valve in the manner of the device for handling an easily polymerizable substance of the present invention, or if a portion of a liquid containing an easily polymerizable substance flowing through a line is allowed to flow through a bypass line by continuously opening a bypass shutoff valve a little while the device is being used, polymerization of the easily polymerizable substance retained in the bypass line can be prevented without using a large amount of polymerization inhibitor. Thus, since the bypass line can be used effectively during repair or replacement of a flow control valve or flow meter, the entire factory does not have to be shut down at that time, thereby making it possible to reduce costs (paragraph [0044]).
The prior art as taught by Hammon and Kabu reside in the closely overlapping technical areas of chemical processes involving the circulation of acrylic acid and is therefore deemed analogous art, as defined in MPEP § 2141(a), such that the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to incorporate the bypass line of Kabu into the apparatus of Hammon with a reasonable expectation of success, and this endeavor would result in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hammon to incorporate the teachings of Kabu to implement a bypass line that connects the discharging line and the return line capable of performing a step of mixing a portion of the circulation liquid containing the melt obtained in the melting step with the circulation slurry discharged from the hydraulic wash column without returning the portion of the circulation liquid to the hydraulic wash column. The motivation to do so would achieve permit the skilled artisan, with a reasonable expectation of success, to arrive at an apparatus with a bypass line that can be used effectively during repair or replacement of a flow control valve or flow meter, such that the entire factory does not have to be shut down at that time, thereby making it possible to reduce costs as described above.
Based on the combined teachings of the references, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the instantly claimed apparatus and methods. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Derek Rhoades whose telephone number is (703)-756-5321. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday, 7:30 am–5:00 pm EST; Friday, 7:30 am–4:00 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692