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
In light of the amendment filed on 22 September 2025, the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 21, 25, 26, and 28 have been amended, claims 30-32 have been added, and claims 6, 11, and 12 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-3, 8, 13-14, 17-21, and 24-32 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 is 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. Specifically, the limitation claiming, “a size of the transmission device deep into the coupling device is adjustable” is unclear. The terms “a size” and “deep into” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “a size” and “deep into” are 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. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean, “a depth to which the transmission device extends into the coupling device is adjustable”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 13-14, 17-19, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN-100548463-C) in view of Stoerzer (US-7473375-B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a multiphase interface reactor (see Title), comprising: a reaction cylinder (see [0023]; “the cylinder 6” and “ the reactants generate products in the cover tube 6”); at least one feed port opened in the reaction cylinder (see [0023] part 22); a stirring device (see [0023] part 7), at least a part of the stirring device being located inside the reaction cylinder (see [0023] and Fig. 1, parts 6 and 7); wherein the stirring device includes: a first power component (see [0006]; The rotating power mechanism is an electric motor); at least one stirring sheet (see [0023] part 10), wherein the at least one stirring sheet and an upper cylinder cover of the reaction cylinder form a first space (This is a natural consequence that occurs due to the placement of the upper cylinder cover and stirring sheet. Because Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the same placement, this first space will naturally occur.), and the at least one stirring sheet and a lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder form a second space (This is a natural consequence that occurs due to the placement of a lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder and stirring sheet. Because Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the same placement, this first space will naturally occur); a transmission device configured to drive, based on driving of the first power component, the at least one stirring sheet to move (see [0023] and Fig. 1 and 2, parts 11, 10, and 3; “The transmission shaft 11 passes through the center of the disc 10 and is vertically connected in series with one, two or more discs 10”, “The disc 10 can rotate freely horizontally in the cover cylinder 6” and “The rotating power mechanism 3 is an electric motor”); and a coupling device configured to connect the first power component and the transmission device (see [0023]; “The transmission shaft 11 passes through the center hole 8 of the top plate 6-1 of the cover cylinder 6, the fixed bearing 15 and the cylinder 6, and is connected to the flange 16” and Fig. 1 and 2, parts 11, 16, and 3 which clearly shows the shaft 11 connected to the motor 3 through the flange 16), at least one cylinder including a first cylinder (see [0023] and Fig. 1 part 25) and a second cylinder (see [0023] and Fig. 1 part 24), wherein, the reaction cylinder, the first cylinder, and the second cylinder communicate with each other (see [0023]; “the products rise between the outer wall of the cover tube 6 and the inner wall of the container cylinder 24, overflow the upper end of the container cylinder 24, flow into the surrounding disc 25”); a first annular space is formed between the reaction cylinder and the second cylinder (see Fig. 1 parts 6 and 24), so that at least a part of a reaction product is allowed to enter the first annular space from the reaction cylinder and enter the first cylinder from the first annular space (see [0023]; “the products rise between the outer wall of the cover tube 6 and the inner wall of the container cylinder 24, overflow the upper end of the container cylinder 24, flow into the surrounding disc 25” and Fig. 1); and at least one discharge port arranged on the first cylinder (see [0023]; “material outlet 26 at the bottom of one side of the surrounding disc 25”).
Yang does not explicitly teach a depth to which the transmission device extends into the coupling device being adjustable, so that a volume of the first space and a volume of the second space are adjustable to control a reaction of nanoparticles. However, Stoerzer discloses a depth to which the transmission device extends into the coupling device being adjustable (a turning agitator in the center of the vessel comprising an agitator shaft and at least one agitator arm… and being vertically movable; see Claim 1). Regarding the limitation claiming, “, so that a volume of the first space and a volume of the second space are adjustable to control a reaction of nanoparticles”, this is a natural consequence that occurs due to the previously claimed structural limitations. Therefore, because the prior art meets the defined structural limitations, particularly the adjustability of the transmission device depth, it naturally follows that the first space and second space volumes will change as the depth of the transmission device changes.
Yang and Stoerzer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-phase processing cylinders utilizing mechanical agitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang by incorporating the teachings of Stoerzer and making the transmission shaft vertically adjustable. Doing so would generate new surfaces (see Stoerzer Col. 1 Lines 35-37).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein the reaction cylinder communicates with the second cylinder through a lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder (see [0023] and Fig. 1; “the products rise between the outer wall of the cover tube 6 and the inner wall of the container cylinder 24”. This indicates that the products exit at the bottom of cylinder 6); an inner surface of a cylinder wall of the second cylinder and an outer surface of a cylinder wall of the reaction cylinder form the first annulus space (see Fig. 1 parts 6 and 24); and the second cylinder communicates with the first cylinder through an upper surface of the second cylinder (“overflow the upper end of the container cylinder 24, flow into the surrounding disc 25”; see [0023]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 2. Yang further discloses a space between the lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder and a lower cylinder cover of the second cylinder (the bottom of the cover tube 6 is suspended above the bottom of the container; see [0023]). Yang does not explicitly teach the exact distance between the bottom surface of the reaction cylinder and lower cylinder cover of the second cylinder. The specification of the instant application states that finding the appropriate distance is necessary to enable smooth product discharge and to prevent accumulation of product, both of which are necessary functions for the operation of the reactor of the instant application and the reactor of Yang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have found a workable distance between the two cylinders, through routine experimentation, to ensure that the reactor is operational.
Regarding Claim 8, the specification of the instant application states that the size (e.g., diameter, height) of the first and/or second cylinder may need to satisfy preset conditions to ensure a smooth discharge of the reaction product. This is a necessary function for the operation of the reactor of the instant application and that of modified Yang. Yang does not explicitly teach the height or diameter of the first cylinder, but does disclose a reactor that enables “the products… to flow out from the material outlet”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have found a workable height and diameter of the first cylinder and reaction cylinder, through routine experimentation, to ensure that it was capable of discharging product, which is necessary to the operation of the device of modified Yang.
Regarding Claim 13, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein the at least one stirring sheet includes at least one stirring disk (see [0023] part 10).
Regarding Claim 14, the specification of the instant application states that the distance between an outer circumference of the stirring disk and an inner surface of the reaction cylinder may be 4-7mm, as claimed, in order to mitigate the gap between the stirring sheet and the reaction cylinder wall in order to prevent fluid from flowing between the stirring sheet and the reaction cylinder wall. Yang does not explicitly teach a distance of 4-7mm, but Fig. 1 of Yang shows that there is virtually no space between the stirring sheet and cylinder wall, thereby blocking fluid from flowing along the forementioned gap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have found the workable distance between the stirring sheet and reaction cylinder wall, through routine experimentation, that would mitigate the distance of said gap (so as to recreate Fig. 1 of Yang), while also allowing enough space for the stirring sheet to stir, which is a necessary function for operation of the device of Yang. Additionally, the specification of the instant application states that the distance from the stirring disk to a lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder may be 70-90 mm in order to meet preset conditions to ensure the reaction environment of nanoparticles. Yang does not explicitly teach the distance between the stirring disk and lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder, but does show that a space present in Fig. 1. Additionally, Yang discloses a reactor that “is particularly suitable for preparing nanoparticles” and that “The bubble-cap disc stirrer assembly is installed at a proper position of a container assembly”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have found a workable distance between the stirring disk and lower bottom surface of the reaction cylinder, through routine experimentation, to ensure that it was suitable to satisfy the conditions required by nanoparticles.
Regarding Claim 17, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 13. Yang further discloses wherein the at least one stirring disk includes: at least one bubble cap (disc with the open bubble cap; see [0006]); and at least one opening having one-to-one correspondence to the at least one bubble cap, each of the at least one opening being located below the corresponding bubble cap (see [0023]; “A plurality of open bubbles [caps] 12 are arranged on the disc 10, and a corresponding bottom hole 13 is opened at the bottom of each bubble 12”).
Regarding Claim 18, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 17. Regarding the limitation wherein a count of the at least one bubble cap is 10, Yang discloses a plurality of bubble caps (see [0023] and Fig. 1). Yang does not explicitly teach exactly 10 bubble caps; however, Yang does disclose at least 10 bubble caps (see Fig. 3, part 12). Yang also discloses “a sufficient amount of fine bubble flow is filled into the reaction liquid” (see [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included exactly 10 bubble caps, or any number of bubble caps, necessary to achieve a sufficient amount of fine bubble flow so that all the reaction liquid is separated into liquid films by the bubbles (see Yang [0006]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 17. Yang further discloses wherein the at least one bubble cap includes a quarter hollow sphere (see [0023]; “The shape of the bubble cap 12 is a part of a sphere, a part of a cylinder, a part of an ellipsoid, a part of a rectangle, or a part of a transitional shape thereof”).
Regarding Claim 32, The limitation that the count of the at least one stirring sheet “is determined according to a reaction condition and a reaction parameter required to generate the reaction product of nanoparticles; and a chemical reaction taking a longer reaction time to generate the nanoparticles requires more stirring sheets than a chemical reaction taking a shorter reaction time to generate the nanoparticles” does not impose a further structural distinction over the independent claim 1. The selection of a specific number of stirring sheets based on reaction conditions and parameters represents optimization of known, result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number of stirring sheets based on reaction conditions to achieve desired performance. MPEP 2144.05.II states that it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN-100548463-C) in view of Stoerzer (US-7473375-B2) and Tonkovich et al. (US-20060102519-A1), hereinafter “Tonkovich”.
Regarding Claim 20, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly teach a dosing device. However, Tonkovich discloses a dosing device (see [0128]; flow control devices and pumps), wherein the dosing device includes: at least one storage tank (see [0128]; storage vessel). Regarding the limitation claiming, “at least one feed pipe configured to connect the at least one feed port and the at least one storage tank”, Tonkovich discloses “The second reactant feed stream may flow from the second reactant stream channel through the apertured section into the reaction zone” (see [0019]) and “the apertured section may comprise a plurality of discrete feed introduction points” (see [0024]). It is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the “reactant stream channel” disclosed by Tonkovich acts as a feed pipe, and that the “feed introduction points” are feed ports. Further, the reactant stream has to come from somewhere, and it would logically follow that the reactants are being fed from the storage tank, requiring a fluid connection. Additionally, Tonkovich does not explicitly teach at least one second power component configured to provide power for transporting reactants from the at least one storage tank to the reaction cylinder, but Tonkovich does disclose a pump (see [0128]). There is precedent in the art to use powered pumps in microchannel reactors such as the one taught by Tonkovich as the alternatives do not offer the precision and automation capability often necessitated in continuous microchannel reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump that requires a power source.
Yang and Tonkovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of multiphase reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang by the teachings of Tonkovich and include the forementioned modifications. These features are very commonly used and understood by those in the art and it would have been apparent that these features were used in combination with a multiphase reactor, even if not explicitly disclosed (see Tonkovich [0128]).
Regarding Claim 21, Yang, Stoerzer, and Tonkovich together disclose the reactor of claim 20. Regarding the limitation claiming, “a control component configured to control a ratio and/or a feeding sequence of the reactants”, controlling the ratio and/or feeding sequence is a naturally necessitated feature of any reactor system. Whether the control component is human intervention or an automated control component, it is a necessity of any reaction system and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ratio of reactants was being controlled by some sort of control component. Tonkovich further exemplifies this by mentioning the change of the ratio of reactants from one embodiment to another (see [0097]), clearly indicating control of reactant ratios.
Regarding Claim 24, Yang, Stoerzer, and Tonkovich together disclose the reactor of claim 20. Regarding the limitation claiming, “a distance between the at least one second power component and the at least one storage tank is smaller than a distance between the at least one second power component and the reaction cylinder”, the courts have held that a mere rearrangement or particular placement of parts are not patentable if they do not modify the operation of the device (see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN-100548463-C) in view of Stoerzer (US-7473375-B2), Ghadge (KR-20150005596-A), and Fackel (DE-3347590-C2).
Regarding Claim 25, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 1. Yang further discloses wherein an outer surface of a cylinder wall of the second cylinder forms a second annulus space with an inner surface of a cylinder wall of the first cylinder (see Fig. 1 Parts 24 and 25) and a washing step (see [0025]).
Yang does not explicitly teach a washing device. However, Ghadge discloses a washing device (slinger device; see [0040]), wherein the cylinder is provided with at least one first cleaning port configured to connect the washing device (“These tubes are mounted on the outer plate of the slinger device and spray the liquid collected into the annular space”; see [0042]). The capability of the tubes to spray liquid into the annular space necessitates a port configured to connect the washing device.
Yang and Ghadge are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multiphase reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang by incorporating the teachings of Ghadge and providing a washing device. Doing so would have allowed the allowed the liquid to be sprayed onto the inner wall of the reaction vessel (see Ghadge [0042]).
Modified Yang does not explicitly teach the claimed configuration of the cleaning ports. However, Fackel discloses the at least one first cleaning port being arranged on an upper cylinder cover of the first cylinder (a supply line 24 opens into the space 15, through which actuating fluid is supplied; see [0037] and Fig. 1) and configured to spray a cleaning solution downward to clean the first cylinder and the second annulus space (all pistons… are advantageously provided with an annular space in which the next small piston is guided; see [0013]; and cleaning fluid can be used both for actuating… and for cleaning; see [0016]; and cleaning fluid can be supplied to the spray head via the annular space; see [0015]); and the second cylinder being provided with at least one second cleaning port configured to connect the washing device (feed opening 25 through which cleaning fluid is supplied; see [0038] and Fig. 1), and the at least one second cleaning port is arranged on a lower cylinder cover of the second cylinder (see Fig. 1 Part 25 and Fig. 2 Part 29) and configured to spray the cleaning solution upward to clean the second cylinder, the inner cylinder, and the first annulus space (the cleaning fluid flows… into the inner channel 19 and from there to the spray head 20 with the rotary sprayer 21, where it is sprayed out through the nozzles 29; see [0050] and Fig. 2).
Yang and Fackel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cylindrical reactors that utilize agitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang by incorporating the teachings of Fackel and providing two cleaning ports. Doing so would enable simplified and automatic cleaning (see Fackel [0010]).
Regarding Claim 26, Yang, Stoerzer, Ghadge, and Fackel together disclose the reactor of claim 25. Ghadge further discloses the washing device including a liquid supply module configured to supply the cleaning liquid (“The injection means”; see [0041]) and a waste liquid collection module configured to collect a waste liquid (“The reflux liquid is received into the storage medium”; see [0049]). Including a liquid supply module and a waste collection module would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would have enabled the liquid to wash away vapors (see Ghadge [0041]) and allowed for the collection of liquid (see [0049]).
Regarding Claim 27, Yang, Stoerzer, Ghadge, and Fackel together disclose the reactor of claim 26. Ghadge further discloses the liquid supply module including: a storage tank configured to store the cleaning liquid (“the slinger device comprises a retaining means defined by a vertical cylindrical plate… to define a space for collecting the liquid”; see [0036]); a liquid supply pipe configured to connect the storage tank with the at least one first cleaning port (“These tubes are mounted on the outer plate of the slinger device and spray the liquid collected into the annular space”; see [0042]). Including these features would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow retention of the liquid (see Ghadge [0036]) and introduction of the liquid into the reactor (see Ghadge [0042]). Regarding the limitation claiming a third power component configured to provide power to transport the cleaning liquid from the storage tank to the cleaning port, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose a power mechanism (see [0006]), and there is a finite number of identified, predictable methods that can be employed to control fluid movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried to use a power source to move to cleaning liquid from the storage to the reactor as there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 28, Yang, Stoerzer, Ghadge, and Fackel together disclose the reactor of claim 26. Ghadge further discloses the liquid supply module further including a control component configured to control a supply flow rate of the cleaning liquid (“The liquid velocity leaving the nozzle/tube or slinger device is optimized by varying the number of nozzles, the tube diameter, the number of perimeter tubes, the size of the perimeter tubes and the number of concave vanes”; see [0051]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this control component to optimize the velocity of the liquid and to identify the required locations where the liquid droplets must strike the inner wall of the vessel (see Ghadge [0051]).
Regarding Claim 29, Yang, Stoerzer, Ghadge, and Fackel together disclose the reactor of claim 26. Ghadge further discloses the waste liquid collection module including: at least one waste liquid collection tank (“retaining means defined by a vertical cylindrical plate… to define a space for collecting the liquid”; see [0036]); and at least one waste liquid pipe configured to connect the at least one waste liquid collection tank and at least one waste liquid collection port (“provided in operative communication with a liquid inlet for receiving liquid”; see [0011]; and pipes, tubes, injection pipe; see [0050] and [0051]). Regarding the limitation claiming “at least one waste liquid collection port is arranged on the second cylinder”, it would naturally follow that the waste liquid is collected from the second cylinder because Ghadge discloses the cleaning liquid being sprayed into the annular region (see [0042]). It would logically follow that a liquid collection port would be required for the cleaning liquid to exit the annular region. The annular region taught by Yang is defined, in part, by the walls of the second cylinder as explained in the claim 1 rejection. Therefore, when modifying Yang by Ghadge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the waste liquid collection port on the second cylinder in order to effectively remove and collect the waste liquid.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN-100548463-C) in view of Stoerzer (US-7473375-B2) and Bartsch et al. (US-8563325-B1), hereinafter “Bartsch”.
Regarding Claim 30, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 1.
Modified Yang does not explicitly teach a sampling port. However, Bartsch discloses the reactor being provided with at least one sampling port configured for a real- time detection of the reaction product (fabricated in quartz, fused silica, or transparent polymer substrates amenable to particle diagnostic techniques such as light scattering, fluorescence imaging, laser-induced fluorescence, or spectroscopy, enabling real-time in situ characterization, analysis, and quality control of particle generation processes; see Col. 5 Lines 55-60).
Yang and Bartsch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-phase interface reactors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang by incorporating the teachings of Bartsch and including product detection. Doing so would enable quality control of particle generation processes (see Bartsch Col. 5 Line 60).
Regarding Claim 31, Yang and Stoerzer together disclose the reactor of claim 1.
Modified Yang does not explicitly teach pH detection. However, Bartsch discloses the reactor being provided with at least one pH detection port configured to place a pH meter to monitor a pH value of an intermediate product during a reaction process (Additional on- chip elements including… pH sensors… sampling channels… etc. can be integrated into the coaxial mixers themselves or into upstream, intermediate, or downstream stages; see Col. 5 Line 63 – Col. 6 Line 2). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow for added control and on-line monitoring of the particle production process (see Bartsch Col. 6 Lines 3-4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774