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 .
This is a response to applicant’s amendment filed on July 27, 2026. No claims have been amended, added or cancelled. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steever et al. (US Pat. No. 3,983,927, hereinafter Steever).
In regard to Claim 1, Steever discloses a device for preventing carbon deposition in a fluidized bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis, comprising:
a tank (#10) (see figure 1 and column 2, lines 61-67);
at least one U-shaped heat exchange tube (#31, #32, #33) arranged in the tank (#10) (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 3, lines 34-59); and
at least one upper flow-guide block (#22) (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 25-33;
wherein each of the at least one U-shaped heat exchange tube (#33) comprises an elbow portion (#36); the at least one U-shaped heat exchanger tube (#33) is arranged vertically with the elbow portion (#36) located at a lower end; the at least one upper flow-guide block (#22) is arranged on an upper surface of the elbow portion (#36); and a width of the at least one upper flow-guide block (#22) decreases from an end connected to the elbow portion to an end away from the elbow portion (see figure 1 and figure 3 below and column 3, lines 3, lines 34-59).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that although Steever does not explicitly disclose that a device is for preventing carbon deposition in a fluidize bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis, it has been held that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use as reciting in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02-II.
In regard to Claim 2, Steever discloses the device as recited in claim 1. Steever discloses wherein each of the at least one upper flow-guide block comprises a connection portion and a guiding portion; the connection portion is connected to the upper surface of the elbow portion; and the guiding portion is provided on a side of the connection portion away from the elbow portion (see figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
394
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to Claim 3, Steever discloses the device as recited in claim 2. Although Steever does not explicitly disclose wherein a cross section of the guiding portion is oval, triangular or arc-shaped, changing the shape of the cross-section of the guiding portion is a mere engineering design choice, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improving the inhibition of carbon deposition within the fluidized bed reactor, and has no patentable weight, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regard to Claim 4, Steever discloses the connection portion is a circular arc surface concavely arranged on the elbow portion; or a cross section of the connection portion is quadrilateral, and a bottom edge of the cross section is a circular arc concavely arranged on the elbow portion (see figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
409
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to Claim 5, Steever discloses wherein a width of the connection portion is 100-150% of a tube spacing of the at least one U-shaped heat exchange tube (#31, #32, #33) (see figure 3). Although Steever does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of the at least one upper flow-guide block is 50-200% of a height of the elbow portion, adjusting the height of the upper flow-guide block to an optimum height is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for improving the inhibition of carbon deposition within the fluidized bed reactor, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steever in view of Xu et al. (CN216024777U-relied on machine translation, hereinafter Xu).
In regard to Claim 7, Steever discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a gas-solid flow active control device is provided on an outer surface of the tank, and is arranged below the elbow portion.
However, Xu teaches a fluidized bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis. The fluidized bed reactor (#1) comprises a lower end of which is formed into an inverted cone shape and has a feed inlet (#2) located at the bottom of the bed, and at least one insertion tube (#3), i.e. gas-solid flow active control device provided on an outer surface of the tank and arranged below the elbow portion, fixed to the side wall of the lower end of the bed, and a portion of the insertion tube is located inside the bed (see figure 1 and paragraphs [n0006]-[n0007] and [n0024]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Steever by further including a gas-solid flow active control device provided on an outer surface of the tank, and is arranged below the elbow portion, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Xu teaches a fluidized bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis, wherein the fluidized bed reactor comprises a lower end of which is formed into an inverted cone shape and has a feed inlet located at the bottom of the bed, and at least one insertion tube, i.e. gas-solid flow active control device provided on an outer surface of the tank, fixed to the side wall of the lower end of the bed, and a portion of the insertion tube is located inside the bed, thereby improving the mixing uniformity of silicon powder and chloromethane, reducing the amount of unreacted silicon powder and the problem of insufficient silicon powder utilization rate in organosilicon monomer synthesis device is solved without interfering with the fluidization state of the upper and middle fluidized bed reaction zone (see figure 1 and paragraphs [n0006]-[n0007] and [n0024]-[0025]).
In regard to Claim 8, Steever, in view of Xu, discloses the device as recited in claim 7. Xu further teaches wherein the tank (#1) comprises an inverted cone section provided below the elbow portion; the gas-solid flow active control device (#3) has a multi-layer structure, and multiple layers of the gas-solid flow active control device are uniformly distributed on the inverted cone section (see paragraphs [n0007], [n0010]-[n0015]; Xu teaches wherein the fluidized bed reactor has the lower end formed into an inverted cone shape, has a feed inlet in the bottom of the bed, and at least one insertion tube (#3) is fixed to the side wall of the lower end of the bed, and a portion of the insertion tube (#3) is located inside the bed. The insertion tubes (#3) are configured in multiple ways, wherein two insertion tubes (#3) form an insertion tube group, and the openings of the two insertion tubes in each insertion tube group are arranged facing each other. The insertion tubes of different insertion tube groups are arranged in parallel, with the distance between the two insertion groups being 300-1000mm. This is considered equivalent to the gas-solid flow active control device having a multi-layer structured and multiple layers of the gas-solid flow active control device are uniformly distributed on the inverted cone section, as claimed by the applicant.).
Although Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of each layer of the gas-solid flow active control device is 5-20% of a height of the inverted cone section, Xu discloses the importance of having tubes of different insertion tube groups are arranged in parallel, with the distance between the two insertion groups being 300-1000mm. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, to optimize the height of each layer of the gas-solid flow active control device an optimum height, such as 5-20% of a height of the inverted cone section, as claimed by the applicant as the height is a recognized result-effective variable and optimizing a result effective variable is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Steever by further having the tank to comprise an inverted cone section provided below the elbow portion, the gas-solid flow active control device has a multi-layer structure, and multiple layers of the gas-solid flow active control device are uniformly distributed on the inverted cone section, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Xu teaches a fluidized bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis, wherein the fluidized bed reactor comprises a lower end of which is formed into an inverted cone shape and has a feed inlet located at the bottom of the bed, and at least one insertion tube, i.e. gas-solid flow active control device provided on an outer surface of the tank, fixed to the side wall of the lower end of the bed, and a portion of the insertion tube is located inside the bed, whereby the insertion tubes are configured in multiple ways, wherein two insertion tubes form an insertion tube group, and the openings of the two insertion tubes in each insertion tube group are arranged facing each other, and the insertion tubes of different insertion tube groups are arranged in parallel, with the distance between the two insertion groups being 300-1000mm, thereby improving the mixing uniformity of silicon powder and chloromethane, reducing the amount of unreacted silicon powder and the problem of insufficient silicon powder utilization rate in organosilicon monomer synthesis device is solved without interfering with the fluidization state of the upper and middle fluidized bed reaction zone (see figure 1 and paragraphs [n0006]-[n0007], [n0010]-[n0015] and [n0024]-[0025]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steever in view of Yan et al. (CN205550237U-relied on machine translation, hereinafter Yan).
In regard to Claim 9, Steever discloses the device as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose a gas inlet distributor, wherein the gas inlet distributor is V-shaped, and is connected to an inner side wall of the tank; and the gas inlet distributor is provided with a plurality of gas distribution holes.
However, Yan teaches an organosilicon fluidization bed reactor gas distributing device with advantages such as uniform gas flow velocity, no gas deviation, high fluidization quality, and resistance to clogging (see paragraph [0007]). The gas distribution device, i.e. gas inlet distributor, for an organosilicon fluidized bed reactor includes two gas distribution plates (#1) arranged in a conical shape, i.e. V-shaped, connected to an inner side of a fluidized bed reactor tank (#5), and disposed below an elbow portion of U-shaped heat exchange tubes arranged in the fluidized bed reactor tank (#5), and the gas distribution device, i.e. gas inlet distributor, is provided with a plurality of gas distribution holes (#2) for enabling the gas to enter the fluidized bed reactor tank (#5) more evenly (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0007], [0018] and [0024]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device as disclosed by Steever by further including a gas inlet distributor, wherein the gas inlet distributor is V-shaped, and is connected to an inner side wall of the tank, and the gas inlet distributor is provided with a plurality of gas distribution holes, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yan teaches an organosilicon fluidization bed reactor gas distributing device, i.e. gas inlet distributor, which includes two gas distribution plates arranged in a conical shape, i.e. V-shaped, connected to an inner side of a fluidized bed reactor tank and disposed below an elbow portion of U-shaped heat exchange tubes arranged in the fluidized bed reactor tank, and the gas distribution device, i.e. gas inlet distributor, is provided with a plurality of gas distribution holes for enabling the gas to enter the fluidized bed reactor tank more evenly, thereby efficiently obtaining a device having a gas inlet distributor which has advantages such as uniform gas flow velocity, no gas deviation, high fluidization quality, and resistance to clogging (see paragraphs [0007], [0018] and [0024]).
In regard to Claim 10, Steever discloses the fluidized bed reactor as recited in claim 1. Steever further discloses placing the fluidized bed reactor in the tank (#10) of the device, feeding a gas to the fluidized bed reactor, and dissipating heat generated from the reactions through the at least one U-shaped heat exchange tube (#31, #32, #33) (see figures 1 and 3, column 2, line 61 to column 3, line 10, and column 4, lines 27-33). Steever fails to disclose, feeding chloromethane gas to the fluidized bed reactor through a gas inlet distributor to undergo reactions with silica particles in the presence of a catalyst, and wherein at least one upper flow-guide block is configured to alleviate particle accumulatio at the elbow portion.
However, Yan teaches an organosilicon fluidization bed reactor gas distributing device with advantages such as uniform gas flow velocity, no gas deviation, high fluidization quality, and resistance to clogging. Fluidized bed reactors are one of the core pieces of equipment in organosilicon production. Gaseous chloromethane enters from the lower head of the fluidized bed and then enters the interior of the fluidized bed reactor after passing through a gas distribution device. This fluidizes the solid particles such as silicon powder and catalyst, which react with the chloromethane at a temperature of around 300°C to generate gaseous organosilicon monomers. Therefore, the gas distribution device directly affects the fluidization effect of the fluidized bed, which in turn affects the reaction rate and yield. (see paragraphs [0004] and [0007]).
In practical use, silicon powder, i.e. solid silica particles, and catalyst enters the fluidized bed tank (#5) from the silicon powder conveying pipe (#7), and chloromethane gas enters cavity (#51) of the lower head of the fluidized bed tank (#5) from the chloromethane feed pipe (#6), and enters the fluidized bed tank (#5) through a gas distributing device, i.e. gas inlet distributor, comprising two gas distribution plates, a plurality of gas distribution holes (#2) and gas passage (#31), so that the silicon powder entering the bed is fluidized to undergo reactions with the silicon powder, i.e. solid silica particles, and catalyst, and thus, enabling the gas to enter the fluidized bed tank (#5) more evenly (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the device and method as disclosed by Steever by feeding chloromethane gas to the fluidized bed reactor through a gas inlet distributor to undergo reactions with silica particles in the presence of a catalyst, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yan teaches that fluidized bed reactors are one of the core pieces of equipment in organosilicon production, whereby gaseous chloromethane enters from the lower head of the fluidized bed and then enters the interior of the fluidized bed reactor after passing through a gas distribution device, whereby this fluidizes the solid particles such as silicon powder and catalyst, which react with the chloromethane at a temperature of around 300°C to generate gaseous organosilicon monomers, wherein practical use, silicon powder, i.e. solid silica particles, and catalyst enters the fluidized bed tank from the silicon powder conveying pipe, and chloromethane gas enters cavity of the lower head of the fluidized bed tank from the chloromethane feed pipe, and enters the fluidized bed tank through a gas distributing device, i.e. gas inlet distributor, comprising two gas distribution plates, a plurality of gas distribution holes and gas passage, so that the silicon powder entering the bed is fluidized to undergo reactions with the silicon powder, i.e. solid silica particles, and catalyst, and thus, enabling the gas to enter the fluidized bed tank more evenly (see figure 3 and paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
Examiner notes that although Steever, in view of Yan, is silent in regard to wherein the at least one upper flow-guide block is configured to alleviate particle accumulation at the elbow portion, Steever, as modified above, discloses substantially the same method and device comprising the upper flow-guide block as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is reasonably expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Steever et al. (US Pat. No. 3,983,927)-which is considered the closest prior art of record, discloses a device for preventing carbon deposition in a fluidized bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis, comprising:
a tank (#10) (see figure 1 and column 2, lines 61-67);
at least one U-shaped heat exchange tube (#31, #32, #33) arranged in the tank (#10) (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 3, lines 34-59); and
at least one upper flow-guide block (#22) (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 25-33;
wherein each of the at least one U-shaped heat exchange tube (#33) comprises an elbow portion (#36); the at least one U-shaped heat exchanger tube (#33) is arranged vertically with the elbow portion (#36) located at a lower end; the at least one upper flow-guide block (#22) is arranged on an upper surface of the elbow portion (#36); and a width of the at least one upper flow-guide block (#22) decreases from an end connected to the elbow portion to an end away from the elbow portion (see figure 1 and figure 3 below and column 3, lines 3, lines 34-59).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that although Steever does not explicitly disclose that a device is for preventing carbon deposition in a fluidize bed reactor for organosilicon monomer synthesis, it has been held that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use as reciting in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02-II.
The difference between Steever and the instant invention is that Steever fails to disclose further comprising at least one lower flow-guide block; wherein the at least one lower flow-guide block is arranged on a lower surface of the elbow portion; and the at least one lower flow-guide block and the at least one upper flow-guide block are arranged in mirror symmetry with respect to a horizontal plane where a center of the elbow portion is located.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
“1. Steever's #22 and the upper flow-guide block in the present invention have different structures.
Steever's #22 is a static layer of particulate solid material rather than a structural component attached to the elbow portion (heat exchange tube). Steever repeatedly and unequivocally describes the element #22 as a layer of solid particles that naturally accumulates on the constriction plate: Steever discloses that "The bed solids below the level of the tuyere ports constitute a static layer during fluidization and the lower return bends of the heat exchange coils are embedded in this layer and so are shielded from erosion by the fluidized solids of the bed proper (Abstract). The static layer of solids is established on the top surface of the fluid bed constriction plate and extends upwardly to just below the level of the tuyere ports. The particulate solids below the level of the tuyere ports are essentially undisturbed by the fluidizing gas issuing through the ports. In this static layer there is little or no movement of gas or solids (Column 2, lines 49-56). The lower return bends 36, as described above, are embedded in and protected by the static or quiescent layer of particulate solids 22 (Column 5, lines 54-56)." That is, the element #22 in Steever is not a structural component attached to the heat exchange tube, rather, it is a layer of loose particulate solids that naturally accumulates on the constriction plate due to the elevated tuyere port location. It is not a solid body fixed to the elbow portion, nor does it have any geometric features such as a "width that decreases from an end connected to the elbow portion to an end away from the elbow portion."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the at least one upper guide-block being attached to the elbow portion) are not recited in the rejected claims. There is no disclosure in the claims that require the “upper guide-block” to be “attached” to the elbow portion of the U-shaped heat exchanger. The claims merely require the “upper guide-block” to the arranged on an upper surface of the elbow portion, and not “attached” to the elbow portion. Therefore, Steever reasonably reads on the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that: “1.2 The claimed "upper flow-guide block" in the present invention is a solid structural element fixed to the upper surface of the elbow portion.
Claim 1 explicitly requires that the upper flow-guide block is arranged on an upper surface of the elbow portion, and has a width that decreases from an end connected to the elbow portion to an end away from the elbow portion (lines 8-11)." Such configuration implies a solid and rigid body capable of maintaining a tapered profile to actively redirect the gas-solid flow. Therefore, the element #22 in Steever fails to render the structure of the upper flow-guide block obvious.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the at least one upper guide-block being fixed to the upper surface of the elbow portion) are not recited in the rejected claims. There is no disclosure in the claims that require the “upper guide-block” to be “fixed” to the upper portion of the elbow portion of the U-shaped heat exchanger. The claims merely require the “upper guide-block” to the arranged on an upper surface of the elbow portion, and not “fixed” to the upper portion of the elbow portion. Therefore, Steever reasonably reads on the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that: “2. Steever's #22 and the upper flow-guide block in the present invention have different functions.
2.1 The function of Steever's #22 is passive isolation - protecting the lower bends from highly erosive conditions.
Steever discloses that "The lower return bends of the heat exchange coils are embedded in a static layer and so are shielded from erosion by the fluidized solids of the bed proper (Abstract). In this static layer there is little or no movement of gas or solids (Column 2, lines 49-56). The lower return bends 36 are embedded in and protected by the static or quiescent layer of particulate solids 22 (Column 5, lines 54-56)." That is, Steever's #22 is configured to keep the bends away from the fluidized zone where high-velocity particles cause abrasion. In this static layer, there is "little or no movement of gas or solids," so no flow-guiding function exists. In order words, Steever deliberately creates a static dead zone below the tuyere ports to protect the bends from erosion. 2.2 The function of the claimed "upper flow-guide block" in the present invention is flow guidance - avoiding the flow dead zone and particle accumulation at the elbow portion, thereby avoiding the local overheating. The present invention is to prevent carbon deposition in a fluidized bed reactor for the organosilicon monomer synthesis, so as to avoid carbon deposition caused by flow dead zones and local overheating due to changes in cross-sectional geometry of the fluidized bed reactor, the elbow portion of the U-shaped heat exchanger tube and uneven gas distribution (see specification, page 3, lines 19-23). The upper flow-guide block is arranged on the elbow portion of the U-shaped heat exchange tube to avoid the flow dead zone and particle accumulation at the elbow portion, thereby avoiding the local overheating (see specification, page 5, lines 21-24). A gas-solid flow active control device is provided to enable the active and passive regulation of the gas-solid flow in the fluidized bed reactor in combination with the upper flow-guide block having the passive flow-guide function (see specification, page 5, lines 27-30). That is, the upper flow-guide block is configured to perform flow-guide function, avoid particle accumulation and eliminate dead zone. Therefore, the element #22 in Steever also fails to render the function of the upper flow-guide block obvious. As discussed above, Steever teaches creating a particle accumulation region, while the present invention teaches eliminating particle accumulation. Therefore, Steever fails to disclose or suggest the claimed "upper flow-guide block" in either structure or function.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that even if, assuming arguendo, that Steever has a different function, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In view of this, the arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejection is thereby maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights