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 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 1-25 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.
With regard to claims 21 and 23, claim 21 requires heating the mixture above the melting point of the plastic. Polyethylene (PE) melting points vary by density and grade, for example:
with low-density PE (LDPE) melting around 221–239°F (105–115°C)
and high-density PE (HDPE) melting higher, typically 266–275°F (130–135°C), while linear low-density PE (LLDPE) falls in between at 239–266°F (115–130°C), with some grades even reaching higher.
However, claim 23 then states that the heating is done at 250-450oF. for plastics like polyethylene and polypropylene, the melting point can be above 250oF. This means that part of the temperature range in claim 23 may not meet the requirement of claim 21. Because the two limitations are inconsistent with one another, it is unclear what temperatures actually fall within the scope of the invention and is indefinite.
With regard to claims 1 and 13-18, claim 1 uses the term petroleum feedstock” but the dependent claims list many different refinery streams such as vacuum gas oil, atmospheric gas oil, aromatic refinery streams, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, naphtha. These materials have very different properties and purposes. The claims do not set forth which characteristics make something a petroleum feedstock” so that a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the boundaries of this recited term.
With regard to claims 1, 11, 12 and 19, claim 1 describes the blend as having finely dispersed micron sized particles, which means that solid particles are present. However, claim 19 states that the blend is a ‘hot homogeneous liquid”. A homogeneous liquid would not contain dispersed solid particles. Since these limitations contradict each other, and require the blend to contain solid particles and to be a homogeneous liquid and it is unclear whether the blend must contain solid particles or must be fully homogenous and thus indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub 2016/0362609A1 see abstract, claims; in view of USP 6150577; in view of USPub2019/0161683A1.
With regard to claim 1, directed to a blend of a petroleum feedstock and 1-20 wt.% of plastic. based on the weight of the blend, with the plastic comprising polyethylene and/or polypropylene, and the plastic in the blend comprising finely dispersed micron-size particles having an average particle size of 10 micron to less than 100 microns.
USPub 20160362609 discloses process for converting mixed waste plastic (MWP) into valuable petrochemicals including feeding MWP to a pyrolysis reactor, converting the MWP into a gaseous stream and a liquid stream, and further processing the gaseous stream into valuable petrochemicals. See abstract. More specifically, the primary reference blending a hydrocarbon or petroleum feedstock with waste plastic prior to the introduction into a pyrolysis reactor. See paragraph [0037]. Paragraph [0026] discloses polyethylene and polypropylene and paragraphs [0004], [0015], and paragraphs [0020]-[0028] describes feeding a hydrocarbon carrier steam along with waste plastic into processing units where the two components are mixed to form a combined feed. The reference also teaches that the plastic becomes molten and disperses within the hydrocarbon stream under thermal and shear conditions. Paragraph [0030] discusses heating plastic containing feed to decompose or melt the plastic. Paragraph [0032] shows converting the plastic to a molten form. And paragraph [0040] explains how thermal and mechanical conditions facilitate dispersion of the molten plastic into the hydrocarbon carrier.
USP 6150577 discloses that polyethylene and polypropylene were known as feedstocks for hydrocarbon processing and shows that the process of heating mixed petroleum and plastic feed streams in refinery processes was known in the art. The reference also demonstrates that polyethylene oil mixtures that remain pumpable and thermally stable at refinery temperatures of 600-700oC and may be blended with petroleum derived oil to form a stale feed suitable of passing through refinery thermal units. See col. 3 lines 30-31 and col. 15 lines 22-24.
Neither USPub 20160362609 nor USP 6150577 discloses that the plastic in the blend comprises finely dispersed micron size particles having an average particle size of 10 to less than 100 microns.
Note however, USPub 20190161683 discloses a process for processing plastic waste comprising converting plastic waste to hydrocarbon liquid and a first C1- 4 gas; contacting hydrocarbon liquid with a first hydroprocessing catalyst in hydroprocessing unit to yield a second C4 gas and a first hydrocarbon product comprising C5 + liquid hydrocarbons; introducing the first hydrocarbon product to a first separating unit to produce treated hydrocarbon stream comprising C5 - 8 hydrocarbons and a first heavies stream comprising C5+ hydrocarbons; contacting the first heavies stream with a second hydroprocessing catalyst in hydro dealkylating unit to yield a second hydrocarbon product comprising C5 + liquid hydrocarbons and a third C1-4 gas; conveying the second hydrocarbon product to the first separating unit ; feeding treated hydrocarbon stream to steam cracker to produce steam cracker product; separating steam cracker product into olefin gas, saturated hydrocarbons gas, aromatics, and a second heavies stream; and conveying the second heavies stream to hydroprocessing unit. The reference further teaches finely dispersed micron -size particles having a particle size of 200 micron in paragraph [0138] under Example 6.
Thus, USPub2019/0161683A1 discloses grinding plastic feedstock into micron sized particles and explains that particle size affects dispersion. Although the refernece provides a specific example of 200µm, particle size is a well-known variable that affects melt uniformity, mixing efficiency and handling in hydrocarbon systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce particle size into the claimed micron range in order to improve dispersion of the plastic within the petroleum feedstock, because finer particles increase melt uniformity, reduce phase separation and enhance mixing stability. additionally, achieving “finely dispersed” particles would have been an obvious design goal when blending solid plastic into petroleum streams since the prior art teaches that dispersion quality improves processing performance. .
Thus, although the particle size is not the same range as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a particle size within the claimed range because is a well-recognized variable affecting dispersion, melt uniformity, and reaction consistency in hydrocarbon/plastic feed mixtures as shown be and would have been motivated to optimize the particle size of the plastic feed taught in USPub 20190161683 and routinely adjusted grinding parameters to obtain particle sizes within the claimed 10-100 micron ranges as needed.
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the plastic particle size taught in USPub 20190161683 to improve dispersion and compatibility with petroleum feedstocks in the process of
USPub 20160362609 since the optimization of particle size parameter is routine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular size parameters as known in the art, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 2, directed to the2. The blend of claim 1, wherein the amount of plastic in the blend comprises from 1-10 wt. % of the blend.
USPub 20160362609 discloses feeds containing plastic blended with hydrocarbon liquids at various ratios. Selecting a plastic concentration within 1-10wt% represents routine optimization of a known component ratio to achieve a workable melt flow, dispersion and pumpability. The claimed wt% ranges of plastic is obvious optimization of known melt processing variables. See table in Example 2, paragraphs, [0002]-[0009], [0020], and Example 1. Thus, given the disclosure of the reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular size parameters as known in the art, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 3, directed to the blend of claim 1. wherein the plastic comprises low density polyethylene.
Paragraph [0026] discloses polyethylene and polypropylene explicitly in USPub 20160362609. Note also Example 1 where it discloses LDPE or low density polyethylene.
With regard to claim 4, directed to the4. The blend of claim 1, wherein the plastic comprises high density polyethylene.
Note Example 1 teaches high density polyethylene or HDPE in USPub 20160362609 and in Example 1 of USP 6150577. Note also Example 18 and figure 5a in USPub 20190161683. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a high density polyethylene as the polyethylene in the blend in USPub 20160362609 since HDPE is explicitly discloses and it is known to be used in hydrocarbon processing since it provides thermal stability and compatibility with refinery temperatures. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 5 directed to the blend of claim 4, wherein the blend comprises from 1-10 wt. % of the high density polyethylene.
Note discussion for claims 2 and 4 above.
With regard to claim 6, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the plastic comprises polypropylene having an average molecular weight. M, in the range of 5,000 to 150,000.
Note col. 1 lines 49-52, and col. 2 line 3, in USP 6150577 and USPub 20190161683 paragraphs [0177], [0183]. Selecting higher or lower molecular weight polypropylene improves melt straight, viscosity and dispersion which are well-known to the skilled artisan and choosing molecular weight ranges of 5,000-150,000 would have been an obvious optimization of the molecular weight. Thus, given the disclosure of the two references in view of the primary reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the particular average molecular weight as known in the art, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 7, directed to thee blend of claim 1, wherein the plastic comprises polypropylene having an average molecular weight, M, in the range of 150,000 to 400.000.
Note col. 1 lines 49-52, and col. 2 line 3, in USP 6150577 and USPub 20190161683 paragraphs [0177], [0183]. Selecting higher or lower molecular weight polypropylene improves melt straight, viscosity and dispersion which are well-known to the skilled artisan and choosing molecular weight ranges of 150,000-400,000, would have been an obvious optimization of the molecular weight. Thus, given the disclosure of the two references in view of the primary reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the particular average molecular weight as known in the art, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 8, directed to the8. The blend of claim 7, wherein the blend comprises from 1-10 wt. % of the polypropylene.
Note discussion for claims 2, 4 and 5 above.
With regard to claim 9, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the plastic comprises a mixture of polyethylene and polypropylene.
Note discussion for claim 2 and 3 above. USP20160362609A1 also discloses in Example 1 and paragraph 26 which demonstrates that both polypropylene and polyethylene may be used together in the mixture.
With regard to claim 10, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the plastic is a waste plastic mixture comprising polyethylene and polypropylene.
Note discussion for claim 2, 3, and 9 above. USP20160362609A1 also discloses in the abstract that the plastic is from waste.
With regard to claim 11, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the finely dispersed particles have an average particle size in the range of 10-50 microns.
See discussion for claim 1 above. USPub2019/0161683A1 discloses grinding plastic feedstock into micron sized particles and explains that particle size affects dispersion. Although the refernece provides a specific example of 200m, particle size is a well-known variable that affects melt uniformity, mixing efficiency and handling in hydrocarbon systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce particle size into the claimed micron range in order to improve dispersion of the plastic within the petroleum feedstock, because finer particles increase melt uniformity, reduce phase separation and enhance mixing stability. additionally, achieving “finely dispersed” particles would have been an obvious design goal when blending solid plastic into petroleum streams since the prior art teaches that dispersion quality improves processing performance.
With regard to claim 12, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the finely dispersed particles have an average particle size in the range of 10 to less than 100 microns.
See discussion for claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 13, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the petroleum feedstock in the blend comprises vacuum gas oil, atmospheric gas oil, reformate, light cycle oil, heavy fuel oil, refinery hydrocarbon streams containing toluene, xylene, heptane or benzene, coker naphtha, C5-C6 isomerized paraffinic naphtha, FCC naphtha, hydrocracker bottom, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel or mixtures thereof.
See USP6150577 in col. 4 lines 15-25. USPub 20160362609 paragraphs [0005], [0020], [0041] and USPub2019/0161683A1 in paragraphs [0011]. [0001],[0003],[0051]-[0052] each use the term “streams” which implies multiple.
With regard to claim 14, directed to the blend of claim 1, wherein the petroleum feedstock in the blend comprises gas oil or heavy reformate.
USPub 20160362609 Example 2, Table 1 and paragraphs [0004], [0059] disclose gas oils and reformate as petroleum fractions processed with plastics.
With regard to claim15, directed to the blend of claim 13, wherein the blend comprises light cycle oil, gasoline, or diesel.
See USPub 20160362609 Example 2, Table 1 and paragraphs [0004], [0059]. Particularly, Table 1 disclose lists light cycle oil, gasoline and diesel making these selections obvious substitutions.
With regard to claim 16, directed to the blend of claim 14, wherein the blend comprises light cycle oil, gasoline, or diesel.
See USPub 20160362609 Example 2, Table 1 and paragraphs [0004], [0059]. Particularly, Table 1 disclose lists light cycle oil, gasoline and diesel making these selections obvious substitutions.
With regard to claim 17, directed to the17. The blend of claim 13, wherein the blend comprises benzene, toluene, xylene or heptane.
See USPub 20160362609 paragraph [0020].
With regard to claim 18, directed to the18. The blend of claim 14, wherein the blend comprises benzene, toluene, xylene or heptane.
USPub 20160362609 disclose in paragraph [0020] that aromatic and aliphatic refinery components include benzene, toluene, and xylene.
With regard to claim 19, directed to the19. The blend of claim 1, wherein the blend is at a temperature above the melting point of the plastic and is a hot, homogenous liquid blend.
USPub 20160362609 disclose in paragraph [0020] that aromatic and aliphatic refinery components include benzene, toluene, and xylene.
With regard to claim 20, directed to the blend of claim 19, further comprising petroleum feedstock added to the blend.
USPub 20160362609 disclose in paragraphs [0033] and [0041] including multiple feed stages. Note particularly where [0041] states that gas product….can be further separated into individual streams.
With regard to claim 21, directed to a process for preparing a blend of plastic and petroleum comprising:(a) mixing a petroleum feed and a plastic comprising polyethylene and/or polypropylene together and heating the mixture above the melting point of the plastic, but less than 500oF, while mixing; and (b) cooling the plastic melt and petroleum feedstock liquid blend to a temperature below the melting point of the plastic.
USPub 20160362609 discloses a process for converting mixed waste plastic (MWP) into valuable petrochemicals by feeding MWP to a pyrolysis reactor, converting the MWP into a gaseous stream and a liquid stream, and further processing the gaseous stream into valuable petrochemicals. See abstract. More specifically, the primary reference teaches blending a hydrocarbon or petroleum feedstock with waste plastic prior to the introduction into a pyrolysis reactor. See paragraph [0037]. Paragraph [0026] discloses polyethylene and polypropylene and paragraphs [0004], [0015], and paragraphs [0020]-[0028] describes feeding a hydrocarbon carrier (steam or liquid carrier ) along with waste plastic into processing units where the two components are mixed to form a combined feed. Paragraphs [0020]-[0028],[0030,[0032], and [0040] disclose the heating and processing waste plastic under thermal and mechanical conditions that soften and disperse the plastic within the petroleum feed. Lastly, paragraph [0041] shows downstream handling and controlled heating within refinery process temperatures, which implicitly requires transfer and cooling before further processing
USP 6150577 similarly discloses that polyethylene and polypropylene were known as feedstocks for hydrocarbon processing and shows that the process of heating mixed petroleum and plastic feed streams in refinery processes was known in the art. The reference also demonstrates that polyethylene oil mixtures that remain pumpable and thermally stable at refinery temperatures of 600-700oF and may be blended with petroleum derived oil to form a stale feed suitable of passing through refinery thermal units. See col. 3 lines 30-31 and col. 15 lines 22-24.
While neither USPub 20160362609 nor USP 6150577 expressly discloses cooling the molten plastic petroleum mixture below the melting point of the plastic, cooling after melt mixing would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art. However, although USPub 20160362609 does not explicitly teach cooling below the melting point, it does teach downstream handling after melting, such as moving the mixture to further units, which inherently requires temperature reductions. Once the polymer has been melted and dispersed into the petroleum feedstock, the mixture must be cooled to a temperature suitable for storage, transport or downstream processing and would have been a routine process steps in polymer refinery processing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the molten plastic petroleum mixture below the melting point of the plastic to a temperature suitable for storage, transport or downstream processing.
With regard to claim 22, directed to the process of claim 21, wherein the cooling in (b) is conducted together with continuous stirring.
See discussion for claim 21 above.
With regard to claim 23, directed to the process of claim 21. wherein the heating is conducted at a temperature of 250-450° F with a residence time of 5-240 minutes at a final heating temperature.
USPub 20160362609 and USP 6150577 teach heating plastic and hydrocarbon mixtures within refinery temperatures which are well known for controlled reaction residence times. USPub 20160362609 describes heating waste-plastic petroleum feed mixtures under thermal and mechanical conditions that soften and disperse the plastic within the hydrocarbon carrier in paragraphs [0020]-[0028],[0030,[0032], and [0040] while USP 6150577 discloses heating polyethylene oil mixtures and petroleum derived oils at refinery temperatures of 600-700oC. See col. 3 lines 30-31, col. 15, lines 22-24. disclose the heating and processing waste plastic under thermal and mechanical conditions that soften and disperse the plastic within the petroleum feed. Lastly, paragraph [0041] shows downstream handling and controlled heating within refinery process temperatures, which implicitly requires transfer and cooling before further processing
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular temperature and residence time conditions as known in the art, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 24, directed to the24. The process of claim 21, wherein the cooling is continued until ambient temperature is reached.
See discussion for claim 21 above. Once the plastic containing feed mixture is processed under thermal conditions as taught by USP20160362609A1, it must be cooled to temperatures suitable for handling , storage or downstream processing which are conventional process steps in refinery and polymer handling processes.
With regard to claim 25, directed to the25. The process of claim 21. wherein the plastic is waste plastic mixture comprises polyethylene and poly propylene.
Note discussion for claim 2, 3, and 9 above. USP20160362609A1 also discloses in the abstract that the plastic is from waste and that the feed mixtures include polyethylene and polypropylene. See paragraph [0026] which discloses both polymers as components of the waste-plastic material. .
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference
between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not
specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention
cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765