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
The amendment filed 15 April 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “sealed annular walls” in claim 13.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The remaining amendments have been considered, and as such, the previously presented U.S.C 112 rejections of claims 1-21 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 April 2026 regarding the U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 15 is persuasive. Accordingly, the U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn. Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that Wei does not teach or render obvious “catalytic powder”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification nor claim 1 provide an objective boundary distinguishing the claimed “powder” from other very finely divided particulate catalyst materials, such as the 10-40 mesh catalyst particles disclosed by Wei (see [0063]). Wei discloses a catalyst bed formed from particulate ZSM-5 catalyst material. Claim 1 does not recite any particle size range, particle morphology, packing density, permeability, or other measurable structural characteristic distinguishing the claimed catalyst bed from Wei’s disclosed catalyst bed. Applicant’s assertion that powder catalysts provide “distinct technical challenges and unexpected advantages” is unsupported by objective evidence. Moreover, the alleged advantages are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which broadly recites only “catalyst powder bed” without reciting structural parameters associated with the asserted improvements. Alternatively, even assuming arguendo that Wei’s 10-40 mesh catalyst is not itself a “powder” catalyst, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a finer particulate or powder form of the catalyst in Wei’s reactor as catalyst size is a result effective variable and optimization of catalyst particle size to obtain predictable improvements in catalytic performance constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Applicant further argues, regarding claim 1, that “Wei does not support a combination of features from both Figs. 8 and Fig. 12, as the rejection attempts to do”. This argument is not persuasive. Wei expressly teaches that “the form of the reaction tube and the form and arrangement of the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber therein can be a variety of choices” (see [0056]). Further, Examiner reminds Applicant that the rejection is based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one embodiment may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another embodiment nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the embodiments. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the reference would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, Applicant’s assertion that the partitioning arrangement disclosed in Fig. 12 is structurally incompatible with the annular embodiment of Fig. 8 is unsupported. The claim merely requires a plurality of distribution compartments separated by second partition walls and does not require the specific hexagonal geometry of Fig. 12. Incorporating additional partition walls into the annular inlet distribution chamber of Fig. 8 would have been a predictable design modification for improving and/or controlling fluid distribution.
Applicant then argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ramler because “Ramler pertains to microchannel reactors with rectangular cross-sections, and does not describe a tubular reactor” and because “Ramler’s C gasket is used to seal a reactor flange and thus does not describe a spring abutting against a holding plate mechanically linked to a tube”. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, and reminds Applicant that the rejection does not rely upon bodily incorporation of features such as a rectangular cross-section and microchannels, and that Ramler and Wei are in the same field of catalytic reactors. Further, the fact that Ramler’s spring-loaded “C” gasket provides sealing at a flange does not negate that the spring-loaded gasket necessarily abuts against mechanically affixed reactor structure associated with the catalyst-retaining assembly. Ramler expressly teaches that the foam and mesh retaining the catalyst are “fitted into a footer that was then affixed to the reactor using bolts and a spring loaded ‘C’ gasket to provide sealing” (see Col. 8 Lines 46-49). Thus, the spring-loaded gasket acts against mechanically-linked reactor structure in order to maintain compression and sealing of the catalyst-retaining fibrous material.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the depressions or dimples on the outer tube of Lee do not teach or suggest the use of bosses formed on the inner wall, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to incorporate the depressions/dimples of Lee because Lee does not disclose a reactor for catalytic processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Bosses” in the context of the claimed invention, as interpreted from a generic understanding of a boss and based on the instant specification, is a protrusion or raised feature to engage a centering effect between the two coaxial tubes. Therefore, the depressions/dimples of Lee meet this limitation, as Lee explicitly discloses, “The inner tube 14 is held substantially concentric to the outer tube as a result of the outer tube being provided with a plurality of concave indentations or dimples projecting inwardly and radially such as to form a domed surface” (see Col. 2 Lines 28-32). Further, the inner wall of the originally claimed invention refers to the inner wall of the outer tube, as specified in claim 1. Per Applicant’s amendment, the walls that define the “inner wall” and “outer wall” have been effectively switched, and this is addressed in the claim 19 rejection below. So, clearly, Lee provides protrusions or bosses on the inner wall of the outer tube that project inward and maintain the inner tube coaxial with the outer tube. Further, Examiner reminds Applicant that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lee, Wei, and the claimed invention are all in the same field of concentric tubes for chemical processes. Lastly, Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, incorporating the teachings of Lee would have offered coaxial support (see Lee, Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the amendment adding the limitation of sealed annular walls in claim 13 is not supported by the original disclosure. Claims 14-15 do not comply with the written description requirement by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
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 1-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wei discloses a fixed-bed tubular reactor (tubular fixed-bed reactor; see [0010]) which extends, according to a longitudinal axis, between a first end and a second end (extending longitudinally parallel to the axial direction of the reactor; see [0011]), said reactor comprises a catalytic powder (10-40 mesh ZSM-5 type MTP catalyst; see [0063]) bed confined in an annular space delimited by an outer wall of a hollow tube and an inner wall of a hollow insert disposed coaxially in the hollow tube (see Fig. 8, Parts 1 (reaction tube), 6 (catalyst bed), and 3-4 (chambers)), the hollow insert comprises at least one distribution chamber (inlet distribution chamber 3; see [0043]) and at least one collection chamber (outlet collection chamber 4; see [0043]), separated from one another by at least one first partition wall (see annotated Fig. 8 below), the at least one distribution chamber comprising a plurality of distribution compartments separated from one another by one or more second partition wall(s) (see Fig. 12 Part 3), each distribution compartment and the at least one collection chamber comprising, respectively, a gas intake opening at the first end and a gas discharge opening at the second end (reaction stream enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the stream inlet 2, then enters the catalyst chamber 6… fluid after the reaction is collected through the outlet collection chamber 4, and then flows out of the reaction tube through the stream outlet 5; see [0043]), the inner wall comprises distributing openings (see Fig. 8 Part 3, where the dashed lines represent the openings that fluid travels through) and at least one collecting opening (see Fig. 8 Part 4, where the dashed lines represent the openings that fluid travels through), which extend over a length-b (this is necessarily true for 3 dimensional structures), each distributing opening enabling the distribution of a gas capable of being admitted through an intake opening into a distribution compartment towards the annular space and the collecting opening enabling the collection of the gas distributed in the annular space by the collection chamber (the reaction stream enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the stream inlet 2 of the reaction tube 1, then enters the catalyst chamber 6, passes laterally through the catalyst fixed bed, contacts the catalyst and reacts therein, and the fluid after the reaction is collected through the outlet collection chamber 4, and then flows out of the reaction tube through the stream outlet 5).
Wei discloses the second partition walls in a different embodiment than the rest of the claimed limitations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second partition walls into the other embodiment so that the reaction stream passes through the catalyst fixed bed in a transverse direction perpendicular to the reactor axis (see [0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein said reactor comprises, at the first end and at the second end, respectively, a distributing space and a collecting space between which the hollow insert is disposed (see Fig. 13, which shows inlet 9 (a distribution space), which flows into the inlet distribution chamber 3, at the top of the reactor, outlets 5 and 12 (collection spaces) at the bottom of the reactor, which are outlets for distribution chamber 4, with the fixed catalyst bed 6 disposed therebetween).
Regarding Claim 3, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein the distribution chambers are sealed at the second end, and the at least one collection chamber is sealed at the first end (see Fig. 13, which shows the inlet (part 2) to the distribution chambers (Part 3) at the top of the reactor while the outlet (part 5) of the collection chamber (part 4) is at the bottom. Fig. 13 does not show or indicate any other openings, meaning that at the opposing end, the distribution and collection chambers are closed).
Regarding Claim 4, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein each distribution compartment is separated from the distributing space by a wall, called intake wall, in which the intake opening is formed (see annotated Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
783
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 4, wherein each intake opening is shaped so as to impose a pressure drop on the gas capable of being admitted into the distribution compartment that is associated thereto (Any opening that allows gas flow and has finite dimensions necessarily imposes a pressure drop due to viscous and inertial losses. Therefore, an opening of any non-infinite area and non-zero lengths reads on this limitation).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 5. The remaining limitations of this claim does not introduce any additional structural limitations beyond those recited in the claims in which this claim depends. The recited “reactive distance” merely corresponds to the distance between the distributing opening and collecting opening, which is necessarily present in the structures of Wei as two distinct and separate openings in 3-dimensional space will always have some measurable distance between them. Further, any pressure drop imposed by an intake opening in an annular flow path is necessarily dependent on such distance. The limitations of this claim are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the reactor, but merely set forth a manner of operating the reactor and a criterium for choosing measurements, not the measurements themselves. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 7, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 6. The limitation claiming that “the pressure drop imposed by an intake opening is even higher as the reactive distance is short” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor, or merely states a consequence that varies with design choice. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 7. The limitation claiming, “wherein the pressure drop associated to a given intake opening is adjusted by the size of said intake opening” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the reactor, or merely stating a consequence that varies with design choice. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 7, wherein a porous element is accommodated within the intake opening (the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber can be suitable forms commonly used in the art, such as porous tubes, porous plates; see [0024]), the porous element having a porosity allowing imposing the pressure drop (this is a natural consequence/effect on fluid of a porous element).
Regarding Claim 10, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 9, wherein the porous element may comprise at least one of the materials selected from among: a fibrous material, in particular wool, a braid or a metal or ceramic fabric (the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber can be suitable forms commonly used in the art, such as porous tubes, porous plates… and the materials can be suitable materials commonly used in the art, such as metals, alloys, ceramics or glass; see [0024]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein the distributing space comprises a volumetric section into which the intake openings open (see annotated Fig. 13 below), said volumetric section being connected to a gas supply duct (“The raw material enters the reactor from the raw material inlet 9”; see [0057] and “gas and/or liquid reactant streams; see [0005]).
PNG
media_image3.png
727
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 2, wherein the distributing space comprises volumetric subsections (multiple reaction tubes 1; see [0057]), at least one intake opening opens into each of which (The raw material enters the reactor from the raw material inlet 9, then enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the material inlet 2 of each reaction tube; see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 12, wherein the volumetric subsections form annular intake spaces (for all intents and purposes, distribution chamber 3 is a volumetric subsection that behaves as an intake space. See Fig. 14 which shows an annular arrangement of reaction tubes 1 each of which includes a distribution chamber 3) disposed concentrically (each distribution chamber 3 surrounds the same center point) and separated by annular walls (see Fig. 14, it can be seen that the borders or walls of part 1, and therefore part 3, extend circumferentially around the center and radially separate the intake regions from one another).
Regarding Claim 14, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 13, wherein several intake openings open into at least one of the volumetric subsections (the raw material enters the reactor from the raw material inlet 9, then enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the material inlet 2 of each reaction tube; see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 15, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 14, wherein each of the volumetric subsections is connected to a different gas intake duct (multiple reaction tubes… the raw material enters from the raw material inlet 9, then enters the inlet distribution chamber 3 through the material inlet 2 of each reaction tube; see [0057]; and “Gas and/or liquid reactant streams”; see [0005]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein said reactor is provided with a porous film covering the hollow insert wall (the inlet distribution chamber and the outlet collection chamber can be suitable forms commonly used in the art, such as porous tubes; see [0024]; it is understood that the distribution chamber and collection chamber together comprise the hollow insert, and a porous tube necessarily has a porous surface layer or film), and arranged so as to prevent the passage of powder from the catalytic powder bed through the distributing openings and/or the collecting opening (this is a natural consequence of the hollow insert being made of porous material and/or a film covering the hollow insert).
Regarding Claim 18, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein the inner wall has no opening on a first section and a second section (see Fig. 1 Part 1, which is the inner wall of the reaction tube as defined in claim 1 and has no openings) which extend from, respectively, the first end and the second end (the inner wall extends from the top to the bottom of the reactor), the first section and the second section overlapping with the powder bed over a height (the inner wall 1 extends along the height of the catalyst bed 6), the height being comprised between 0.2 times and 10 times a distance separating a distributing opening from an immediately adjacent collecting opening, measured along the outer surface of the outer wall (see annotated Fig. 1 below which shows the measured distances of the figure, measured by hand. The height was measured to be 3 inches and the separating distance as 1 inch, which is a ratio of 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
616
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein the collecting opening and the distributing openings have a width comprised between 1/100 and ½ of the diameter of the hollow tube (see Fig. 1, wherein the measured distance of the gap in the dashed line (which represents collection and/or distributing openings) is 2mm and the measured distance of the diameter of the hollow tube (part 1) is 100mm, which equals a ratio of 1/50. It is noted that the exact measurements will change depending on how big/small the figure is printed or how big/small it appears on the screen, but the relative dimensions will maintain a ratio of 1/50).
Regarding Claim 21, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1. The limitation claiming that the hollow insert forms a single-piece part is merely a matter of engineering choice. The courts have held, “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Ramler et al. (US-10335759-B2), hereinafter “Ramler”.
Regarding Claim 17, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1, wherein the catalytic powder is retained in the annular space (see Fig. 8, Parts 1 (reaction tube), 6 (catalyst bed), and 3-4 (chambers)).
Wei does not explicitly disclose a spring forming a seal. However, Ramler discloses catalytic powder being retained by a seal made of fibrous material (mesh to retain the catalyst in the reactor; see Col. 8 Line 49), the seal being held in compression against the catalytic powder by a spring (metal foam and mesh were fitted… then affixed to the reactor using bolts and a spring loaded “C” gasket to provide sealing; see Col. 8 Lines 46-48), the spring abutting against a mechanically linked holding plate of the tube (metal foam is analogous to the holding plate).
Wei and Ramler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic 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 Wei by incorporating the teachings of Ramler and including a spring compression fit. Doing so would enable catalyst retention (see Ramler Col. 8 Line 49).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-103990420-A) in view of Lee (US-4585059-A).
Regarding Claim 19, Wei discloses the reactor according to claim 1.
Wei does not explicitly teach centering means. However, Lee discloses wherein the hollow insert is provided with centering means holding the hollow insert in a position coaxial with the hollow tube (inner tube being held substantially concentric with the outer tube; see Abstract), the centering means comprise bosses formed on the outer wall (held substantially concentric within the outer tube by a plurality of pairs of diametrally opposed depressions or dimples formed in the peripheral surface of the outer tube at regular intervals. Each depression or dimple projects inwardly such as to engage and indent the peripheral surface of the inner tube; see Abstract). Lee discloses the bosses or dimples as being on the outer tube and projecting inward, as opposed to the claim requiring the bosses to be on the inner tube. This, however, is considered a mere rearrangement of parts. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice when the operation of the device is not modified and there are no new and/or unexpected results. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Wei and Lee are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of concentric tubes for chemical processes. 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 Wei by incorporating the teachings of Lee and providing bosses to center the hollow insert. Doing so would have offered coaxial support (see Lee, Abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights